ADVOCATE FOR CHEQUE BOUNCING IN CHANDIGARH

ADVOCATE FOR CHEQUE BOUNCING IN CHANDIGARH IS A HIGHLY SERACHABLE TERMA NOW A DAY ON GOOGLE. Legal Insights on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: A Case Analysis by Advocate Vikram Singh and Associates

IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR ADVOCATE FOR CHEQUE BOUNCING IN CHANDIGARH AND PANCHKULA, Advocate Vikram simgh and Associate is very good choice. In a recent case filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by Advocate Vikram Singh and Associate, the complainant has alleged non-payment arising from a business relationship with the accused, Naresh Kumar, and his associate, Kuldeep Singh. The parties operated together under the names M/s Balaji Builders, M/s Ajay Construction Company, and M/s Kuldeep Singh across various locations in Haryana and Chandigarh.

FACTS OF COMPLAINT REGARDING CHEQUE BOUNCE IN CHANDIGARH

From 2013 to 2016, the complainant supplied shuttering materials on a rental basis to the accused, as per their demands. In acknowledgment of this supply, a cheque for ₹2 lakhs was issued by Naresh Kumar as a token payment, affirming their agreement to settle the outstanding amounts within an agreed timeframe. The construction sites managed by the accused were located in prominent areas such as Sector 17 in Chandigarh and multiple locations in Haryana.

FACT FROM SIDE OF COMPLAINANT

Despite their initial assurances, both Naresh Kumar and Kuldeep Singh defaulted on their payments. The complainant detailed substantial losses amounting to ₹21,30,000 due to lost and damaged materials. Following several discussions for settlement, a cheque of ₹6,30,000 was issued by Kuldeep Singh, which was later dishonored, prompting a separate criminal complaint against him.

In an attempt to fulfill the financial obligations, Naresh Kumar subsequently issued a cheque for ₹15 lakhs. However, this too was returned due to insufficient funds. A legal notice was served on the accused, but no action was taken to honor the cheque, leading to the present complaint.

WHAT DEFENSE ACCUSED TOOK

The defense argued that the complainant failed to produce a formal agreement to substantiate his claims. However, the Court found this line of reasoning unconvincing, noting the testimonies that confirmed the business dealings and the acknowledgment of their partnership. Furthermore, the Court determined that the accused’s vague defenses did not meet the burden of proof required to overturn the presumption of liability established under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

FINAL VERDICT OF COURT

The Court observed that the mere claim of non-business relations by the accused was insufficient, particularly as the cheque bore his signature. The relationship between Naresh Kumar and Kuldeep Singh was further emphasized, establishing both as partners in the business, which rendered Naresh Kumar equally liable for the dues.

CONCLUSION ABOUT CHEQUE BOUNCE COMPLAINT IN CHANDIGARH

the Court held Naresh Kumar guilty under Section 138, affirming the complainant’s claims were substantiated with credible evidence. The case serves as a reminder of the legal obligations inherent in business relationships and the enforceability of Cheque issued as security. in this complaint the District court, Panchkula sentenced the Accused person for TWO YEARS R.I and ordered him to pay the double of Cheque amount to complainant.

WHO CAN HELP YOU IN CASE CHEQUE BOUNCE ADVOCATE

Advocate Vikram Singh and Associates are top Advocate in Chandigarh and Panchkula District court for Cheque Complaints under section 138 of NI Act, and help his client to continue to uphold the principles of justice in similar cases, ensuring that clients receive due legal recourse in the face of financial misconduct. Contact us