WATCH OUT- BEFORE PAYING THE ADVANCE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES


WATCH OUT!!!

BUYING A PROPERTY?

THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN SELECTED/CHOSEN!!!!

NOW THE NEGOTIATION REGARDING THE PRICE BEGINS!!!!!!!

BOTH BUYER AND SELLER MUTUALLY AGREE FOR THE SALE PRICE & DURATION TO COMPLETE THE SALE TRANSACTION !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE NEXT STAGE IS SET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE SELLERS NORMALLY DEMANDS EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT/ADVANCE/SECURITY DEPOSIT, TO HAND OVER THE COPIES OF THE PROPERTY DOCUMENTS.

EXERCISE UTMOST CAUTION:

1). DEAL AND TRANSACT WITH THE ORIGINAL/DIRECT OWNER 

2). ALL THE PAYMENTS MUST BE MADE ONLY THROUGH AN ACCOUNT PAYEE/NON TRANSFERABLE CHEQUE TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER

3). UNDERSTAND THE CONDITIONS and THE APPLICABLE LAWS OF THE SALE AGREEMENT

4). CONDUCT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION WITH A REPUTED OR A CONCERN WHICH HAS A GOOD REPUTATION

5). DO NOT DEPEND ON BANK LOANS OR BANK APPROVALS. BANK APPROVAL DOES NOT MEAN, CLEAR TITLES.

6). DISCUSS ABOUT THE CONDITIONS OF THE SALE AGREEMENT, DURATION, ADDITIONAL/MISC EXPENSES WITH THE SELLER AND THE FORFEITURE CLAUSE, IN CASE OF DEFAULT

7). DO NOT MAKE ANY PAYMENT OR TAKE DECISION IN A HURRY

8). FINALLY, IF YOU ARE TOTALLY SATISFIED WITH THE PROPERTY, PRICE, DURATION AND THE REPUTATION OF THE SELLER, MAKE THE PAYMENT, AFTER CONSULTING YOUR ADVOCATE/SOLICITOR

 

CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE – APEX COURT SUGGESTS FINE!


The Supreme Court has suggested that the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, could be amended so that a convict in a cheque bounce case is made to pay a fine from which the complainant can be paid compensation.

 ”One other solution is a further amendment to the act so that in all cases where there is a conviction, there should be a consequential levy of fine of an amount sufficient to cover the cheque amount and interest thereon, at a fixed rate of 9 percent per annum, followed by award of such sum as compensation from the fine amount,” said the supreme court bench of Justice R.V. Raveendran (since retired) and Justice R.M. Lodha in a recent judgment.

 Speaking for the bench Justice Raveendran said: “This would lead to uniformity in decisions, avoid multiplicity of proceedings (one for enforcing civil liability and another for enforcing criminal liability) and achieve the object of Chapter XVII of the act, which is to increase the credibility of the instrument.”

 ”This is, however, a matter for the Law Commission of India to consider,” the judgment said.

 The judges said that the act “strongly leant towards grant of reimbursement of the loss by way of compensation”.

 ”The courts should, unless there are special circumstances, in all cases of conviction, uniformly exercise the power to levy fine up to twice the cheque amount (keeping in view the cheque amount and the simple interest thereon at 9 percent per annum as the reasonable quantum of loss) and direct payment of such amount as compensation”.

 The supreme court said that the compensation by way of restitution on account of dishonour of the cheque should be “practical and realistic”.

 ”Uniformity and consistency in deciding similar cases by different courts not only increase the credibility of cheque as a negotiable instrument, but also the credibility of courts of justice,” the judgment said.

 ”In same type of cheque dishonour cases, after convicting the accused, if some courts grant compensation and if some other courts do not grant compensation, the inconsistency, though perfectly acceptable in the eye of law, will give rise to certain amount of uncertainty in the minds of litigants about the functioning of courts,” the judgment said.

 Citizens will not be able to arrange or regulate their affairs in a proper manner, as they will not know whether they should simultaneously file a civil suit or not.

 The problem is aggravated since in spite of provisions for concluding such cases within six months from the date of the filing of the complaint, these seldom reach finality before three-four years, the judgment said.

 These cases give rise to complications where civil suits have not been filed within three years on account of the pendency of the criminal cases.

 ”While it is not the duty of criminal courts to ensure that successful complainants get the cheque amount also, it is their duty to have uniformity and consistency, with other courts dealing with similar cases,” the judgment underlined.

 The court said this while dismissing an appeal challenging the Kerala High Court’s verdict that the trial court verdict of imposing fine and awarding compensation could not co-exist.

CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE- DELHI COURT SENTENSES THE ISSUER FOR 6 MONTHS JAIL TERM


Delhi court has sentenced a businessman to six months in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 3 lakh on him, saying no leniency is called for in such cases.

Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja jailed Delhi-based cloth merchant Ravinder Kumar, rejecting his plea for release on probation after payment of fine, saying that cheque bouncing cases consume a lot of time of the court.“It is necessary to mention that offence of dishonour of cheque, punishable under Negotiable Instruments Act, are on the rise and in order to keep the spirit of the legislation, the accused cannot be released on probation as these offences have massive effect on the economic condition of the persons,” said the court.

“This case has been pending since year 2004 and has also consumed a lot of time of this court,” it said. Kumar had taken a loan of Rs two lakhs at 18 per cent interest rate, from a fellow cloth merchant Ramesh Goel’ firm.

Goel had alleged that Kumar’s two cheques of Rs one lakh each were dishonoured by the bank due to insufficient funds in his account and he had failed to clear the dues despite service of legal notices demanding repayment of loan with interest.

Goel produced all documents relating to the loan and bounced cheques and was able to satisfy the court that his case was based on true facts. he court held Kumar guilty under the Negotiable Instruments Act.