#chequebounce

Complainant not proved his financial capacity for loan
#chequebouncecase
#supremecourt
#latestjudgement
Supreme Court of India
Rajaram S/O Sriramulu ... vs Maruthachalam
Date of decision -18 January, 2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1978 OF 2013

[@GurmeetSingh-rl9fd]

VERY GOOD INFORMATION

[@swarnadeepsarkar6760]

What will happen if complainant had paid money in cheque?

[@informativegyan3463]

Can you share more details on email [e-mail]

[@swarnadeepsarkar6760]

A flat was bought at Rs 10,05,00 and later it was cancelled with "deed for cancellation of agreement for sale"and the accused would pay 13,05,000/- and 7 cheques were issued regarding this 1 cheque of 1 lakh has been encashed.

[@ajaymalviya6846]

Respected Sir, I am an accused in a case of 138. I had taken Rs.150000/ from that person which he transferred to my account online. But he bounced the check given by me by filling 600000/ and then notice Sent and filed a court case. In that notice he has written that I have transferred 206000/ cash to you and 144000/ to your son. It is true that he has transferred the said amount to my son. But my son's transaction goes on separately because my son does his own business with his wife and children, staying away from me. Please guide me whether in this situation I can be booked under section 138?

[@shivamagarwal2524]

Iss vedio me document ka pdf mil skta h jya

[@delhilegalnews4613]

138 NI act and O 37 and IPC 420 Can all these three cases be run together?

[@informativegyan3463]

Yes, section 138 of NI Act along with section 420 IPC, order 37 of CPC where the provision of order applied to suit on bill of exchange ( cheque is bill of exchange as per definition) so suit and complainant u/s 138 maintainable along with section 420.

[@pardeepduggal3431]

Agar complaintat itr file na karta ho, qk us ki income taxable hi na ho, to, is ka case par kaya asar padega

[@ramanapanku4306]

Ore laffot..English language needed