๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ฆ๐ ๐ญ๐๐ฑ ๐๐๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ก ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐๐ฒ
๐๐ก๐๐ช๐ฎ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ก๐จ๐ง๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐๐๐ฌ๐: ๐๐๐ ๐๐ฅ ๐๐ซ๐๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฉ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฉ๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ข๐ญ๐ ๐๐ข๐ฌ๐ฌ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐๐๐จ๐ซ๐๐ฌ
๐๐ซ๐๐ค๐๐ฌ๐ก ๐๐๐๐ก๐ฎ๐ค๐๐ซ๐ซ๐๐จ ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ข ๐ฏ. ๐๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ก๐๐ฌ๐ก๐ซ๐๐จ ๐๐๐ฌ๐๐ข
๐๐-๐๐-๐๐๐๐
๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฆ๐ข๐ง๐๐ฅ ๐๐ฉ๐ฉ๐๐๐ฅ ๐ง๐จ. ๐๐๐ ๐จ๐ ๐๐๐๐
In the case of Prakash Madhukarrao Desai vs. Dattatraya Sheshrao Desai, the complainant extended a handloan of Rs 1.50 lakhs to the accused, who issued a cheque for the same amount. However, the cheque bounced due to insufficient funds. A notice was sent under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
Initially, the Trial Court dismissed the complaint because the loan wasnโt shown in the complainantโs Income Tax Returns.
The High Court ruled that, despite the absence of this transaction in complainantโs financial records, it could be enforced under section 138, given the presumption under section 139 that the cheque was issued to clear a debt. The court also emphasized that violations of specific Income Tax section wouldnโt make the transaction unenforceable under section 138.
