https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399138 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was challenged in quash proceedings on the ground that the complainant bank was neither the payee nor holder in due course. The court found that the cheque was issued by the accused as authorised signatory of a third-party concern in favour of his own savings account, but the bank's claim that it was tendered with a covering letter for credit and adjustment of dues depended on disputed facts. As the covering letter was not produced, the question of maintainability required evidence and could not be decided under Section 482 CrPC. The parties were therefore left to proceed to trial. en-us Tue, 29 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Oct 2020 07:04:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399138 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was challenged in quash proceedings on the ground that the complainant bank was neither the payee nor holder in due course. The court found that the cheque was issued by the accused as authorised signatory of a third-party concern in favour of his own savings account, but the bank's claim that it was tendered with a covering letter for credit and adjustment of dues depended on disputed facts. As the covering letter was not produced, the question of maintainability required evidence and could not be decided under Section 482 CrPC. The parties were therefore left to proceed to trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399138