Read Order: Vikram Singh vs. Shyoji Ram 

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, March 2, 2022: While hearing a complaint case of dishonor of cheque and finding that the bank account had been mentioned on the cheque and the endorsement to the effect “Account Frozen” would presuppose that an account existed, the Supreme Court has opined that this is a matter which is to be taken into consideration by the trial court in detail, and not merely on the evidence of bank officers. 

A Larger Bench of Chief Justice N.V Ramana, Justice A.S Bopanna and Justice Hima Kohli therefore observed that it was premature on the part of the High Court to quash the complaint filed by Vikram Singh (Appellant). 

The counsel for the respondent contended that there is no reason to continue the trial as Appellant has not made out a case u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against his client. The counsel further submits that the Bank Managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank.

On the other hand, counsel for the appellant pointed out Annexure P-2 which is the dishonoured cheque and return memo where it has been endorsed as “ACCOUNT FROZEN”.

After considering the submissions, the Larger Bench stands surprised that on the one hand, the Bank Managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank while on the other hand the cheque drawn by Shyogi Ram (Respondent) in favour of the appellant, was returned with the remark “Account Frozen” in respect of the same cheque. 

Therefore, finding that the parties will have to go through a full-fledged trial and it was not a matter the proceedings could have been quashed, the Larger Bench directed the trial court to restore and take up the matter and conclude the same in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment