Kerala High Court Digest 2023: Negotiable Instruments Act

Complainant U/S 138 NI Act Must Specifically Assert That Power Of Attorney Holder Has Knowledge Of Impugned Transaction: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Razak Mether v. State of Kerala and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 24The Kerala High Court observed that a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through power of attorney holder is perfectly legal and competent. However, the power of attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of a complaint, only when he has witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/ holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.Justice A. Badharudeen further observed that the complainant has to make specific assertions as to the knowledge of the power of attorney in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint.It is true that as per the ratio in A.C Narayanan first case (A.C.Narayanan v. State of Maharashtra &anr), the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act through power of attorney holder is perfectly legal and competent. But the power of attorney holder could depose and verify on oath before the court in order to prove the contents of the complaint, only when the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions and also it is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder, who has no knowledge regarding the transactions. If the above stipulations are not satisfied, the power of attorney could not depose and verify on oath before the court."Cheque Issued As Security Will Mature For Presentation On Default When Payment Becomes Due: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Ashok Kumar V. Sankarankutty PillaiCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 264The Kerala High Court recently held that a cheque issued as security would mature for presentation on default when payment is due. In the event of non-payment of the amount, the recipient of the cheque would be compelled to present the cheque for payment, the Court observed.A single bench of Justice Sathish Ninan observed“The very fact that the cheque was issued as security by itself imply that, in the event of non-payment, the security is liable to be enforced. A cheque issued as security would mature for presentation on default when payment is due.”Complainant U/S 138 NI Act Does Not Come Within Ambit Of 'Victim' U/S 2(wa) CrPC: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Paulose v. Baiju & Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 328The Kerala High Court held that the complainant in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not fall within the ambit of the word 'victim', as defined under Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C.Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. defines victim as "a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir".Justice V.G. Arun arrived at the said finding by relying upon the decision in Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) represented through Legal Representatives v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2019). The Apex Court had held therein that Section 378(4) is to be confined to an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a complaint, and had further went on to clarify that the word 'complainant' as defined in Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. refers to any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate and has nothing to do with the lodging or registration of an FIR.Court Where Cheque Is Presented For Collection Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Dishonour Complain U/S 138 NI Act: Kerala High CourtCase title: Alfa One Global Builders Pvt. Ltd v. Nirmala PadmanabhanCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 422The Kerala High Court has held that the word 'delivered' used in Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act") has no significance for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. Rather, significance must be given to the text 'for collection through an account'. That is to say, delivery of the cheque takes place where the cheque was issued and presentation of the cheque will be through the account of the payee or holder in due course, and the latter place is decisive to determine the question of jurisdiction.The Bench comprising Justice A. Badharudeen while dismissing the writ petition has observed that when an issue of jurisdiction arises, the challenge upon jurisdiction has to be raised before the same court and it cannot be a subject matter of writ petition.Mere Retention Of Blank Signed Cheques Without Misappropriation Does Not Attract Criminal Breach Of Trust: Kerala High CourtCase name: K.O. Antony V State of KeralaCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 423The Kerala High Court recently held that mere retention of...

Kerala High Court Digest 2023: Negotiable Instruments Act

Navya Benny

Tags