Skip to content

CA Foundation doubt

Manoj purchased some goods from Sagar. He issued a cheque to Sagar for the sale price on 14th June, 2023. Sagar presented the cheque in his bank and his bank informed him on 19th June, 2023 that chequ

Asked by Satyam30 Aug 2024359 views

5 answers

  1. Anant · 31 Aug 2024

    As per Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act,1881, when a cheque is drawn to discharge liability or repay any debt, either in whole or in part, and the cheque gets dishonored either due to insufficient funds in the bank account of the drawer or the amount written in the cheque exceeds the amount the drawer has arranged to pay from that account, with an agreement with the bank, then drawer is deemed to have committed an offence and is liable for punishment of imprisonment upto 2 years or penalty of double the amount of cheque or both. However, the cheque drawn should be for the purpose of discharging any liability or debt. Cheque drawn for donation, security, gift or for unlawful consideration remains out of the purview of this section. However this section shall not apply unless: 1) cheque presented within validity period. 2) the payee or holder in due course makes demand of the payment of amount written on cheque returned unpaid, in written notice within 30 days from the receipt of such information of dishonor of cheque. 3) The drawer fails to make payment within 15 days from the receipt of such notice. In this case,Sagar received a cheque in exchange for vale. On presentment of the cheque, the cheque gets dishonored due to insufficiency of funds due to which Sagar, the holder in due course, sued the drawer,Manoj. This is a case of dishonor of cheque. However the suit is not maintable because for the holder in due course ( sagar) is supposed to send a written notice to Manoj, demanding for the payment of amount of written in cheque and if Manoj do not pay the amount within 15 days from the receipt of such notice, then Manoj would be deemed to have committed an offence under section 138 and the suit was maintainable.

  2. Kiran · 30 Aug 2024

    According to contract act,1872 section 11 Contract with minor is void . If case of necessary .claim for necessary supplies to a minor is enforceable by law. There is no personal liability of the minor , but only his property is liable .

  3. Shreejee · 30 Aug 2024

    Teb 138 lagu hoga or 2 year ki jail ya amount recovery with compensation

  4. Shreejee · 30 Aug 2024

    1 month k ander suet ker dekta

  5. Shreejee · 30 Aug 2024

    First of all notice Diya jayega jo 1 month k ander Diya jayega jeski time limit 15 days hogi ager fr bhi pay nahi kerta h teb

Free app · 5 lakh+ learners

Ask your doubt in the Studycaller app

Read full notes, ask doubts, follow toppers and track your study hours — free on Android and iPhone.