Without issuing a cheque (even it may be security cheque), they will not be able to initiate cheque bounce criminal case against you.

For your information, it is mandatory that they will serve you a legal notice demanding the cheque payment before filing the cheque bounce case, if you had ignored the legal notice and failed to even respond then they are within their rights to file the cheque bounce case.

You may engage a local advocate and challenge the cheque bounce case on merits or settle the matter in look adalat after appearing in the cheque bounce case to avoid legal consequences. 

You should  appear in  court on said date 

if you don’t appear court will issue bail able warrant against you 

engage a local lawyer and apply for exemption until further orders 

enclose medical certificate that you don’t keep good health had heart attack and underwent angioplasty 

obtain copy of complaint filed by company 

Even in ECS the payment and settlements Act which is identical to Negotable instruments act

Dear Client,

You should treat this as urgent, but remember that a Section 138 case only succeeds if the complainant proves there was a cheque issued by you toward a legally enforceable debt and that the statutory notice/timelines were followed. If you never gave a cheque, your first defence is to check the summon and complaint carefully and get the documents because many loan cases are filed after alleging a signed security cheque or some instrument linked to the loan, while in an ECS-only loan they still may be relying on some cheque or a mistaken/expanded complaint. The medical hardship, business loss, and the fact that this was an ECS arrangement all matter for your defence and for asking the court for time or settlement.

Practically, do not ignore the summons. Attend the date yourself or through a lawyer, take copies of the summons, complaint, notice, bank statements, loan agreement, ECS/NACH records, and your hospital records for the heart attack/angioplasty, and ask for copies of the complaint and annexures so you can see what cheque they rely on and whether notice was properly served. If travel is difficult, try to engage a local advocate immediately to enter appearance and seek an adjournment. At the same time, write to Tata Capital seeking a settlement proposal or restructuring based on your medical and financial hardship, because courts often look more favourably on a borrower who is attending, documenting hardship, and making a genuine payment plan rather than staying absent.

I hope this helps and if you have any further issues do not hesitate to contact us.

A case under the , particularly Section 138, is a cheque dishonour proceeding and not an immediate arrest warrant. Since you have received summons from the Court, it means the lender has filed a cheque bounce complaint and the Court has taken cognizance.

From your narration, an important issue arises: you state that you never knowingly issued any guarantee/security cheque and the loan repayment was through ECS. In many personal loan transactions, finance companies obtain: blank signed cheques, security cheques, or electronic mandates, during loan documentation. Sometimes borrowers do not remember signing them because they are included in the loan file at the time of disbursement or top-up.

Therefore, the first thing you must do is obtain: copy of the complaint, copy of the dishonoured cheque, bank return memo, and loan documents.

This will help determine: whose cheque was presented, whether it bears your signature, whether it was a security cheque, and whether the amount matches the alleged liability.

You should not ignore the summons. Since the matter is pending before the Bengaluru Court, you should engage a local advocate there immediately to: enter appearance, avoid coercive process, and seek exemption from personal appearance wherever possible.

Because you are presently residing in Chennai and also suffered a heart attack with angioplasty, your medical condition is relevant. Courts often permit: representation through counsel, or exemption from repeated personal appearance, especially in cheque bounce matters.

You should preserve: all medical records, angioplasty documents, discharge summary, and employment/business records showing financial hardship.

Please understand that inability to pay due to business loss is not by itself a complete legal defence in Section 138 proceedings if the cheque and liability are otherwise proved. However, many such cases are eventually resolved through: settlement, restructuring, instalment arrangement, or mediation.

You also mentioned that multiple loans/top-ups were consolidated or linked. Sometimes finance companies present old security cheques after default. Whether such use is legally sustainable depends on the exact facts and documentation.

At this stage, your immediate priorities should be:

engage a Bengaluru advocate,
obtain complete case documents,
ensure appearance through counsel,
avoid ex parte proceedings,
and explore settlement/restructuring options once your finances stabilize.

Do not avoid the Court process because continued absence may eventually lead to: bailable warrant, or later non-bailable warrant if summons are repeatedly ignored.

The good part is that cheque bounce cases are compoundable and settlement-friendly. Courts also generally encourage compromise in loan-related NI Act matters.

In conclusion, the summons does not mean immediate arrest or jail. Your first step should be proper legal appearance and obtaining the cheque/document details to verify how the Section 138 case has been filed despite ECS-based repayment arrangements. Your medical condition and financial hardship can also be appropriately placed before the Court while seeking reasonable accommodation and time.

- As per the RBI, the bank should give proper time and offers for the settlement of loan amount.,  on the ground of health and sudden loss 

- As per law, dishonour of ECS due to insufficient funds attracts proceedings under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007, which is treated similarly to Section 138 NI Act.

- Engage a lawyer to appear on your behalf. 

This is a serious situation that needs immediate, structured legal guidance. Let me give you a full strategic analysis.

Strategic Legal Analysis — Section 138 NI Act Summons (Tata Capital Personal Loan)

• 
  Immediate Assessment of the Situation : You are facing a criminal complaint filed by Tata Capital under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the XVIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore (SCH-21). This is a serious matter that requires immediate action — ignoring or delaying appearance can result in a non-bailable warrant (NBW) being issued against you.
  

• 
   Your Core Legal Defence — The ECS/NACH Argument
  

This is your strongest ground, and it is well-settled in law.

Section 138 NI Act is specifically applicable to cheques — a negotiable instrument. It does not extend to:

• ECS (Electronic Clearing System) mandates
• NACH (National Automated Clearing House) debits
• Standing instructions or direct debit authorizations

The Supreme Court's position in ICICI Bank Ltd. v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and the consistent position across High Courts is that ECS mandates are not cheques under Section 6 of the NI Act and therefore dishonour of ECS does not attract Section 138.

Key precedents in your favour:

• M/s Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewables Energy Development Agency Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC 458 — SC held that post-dated cheques given as security attract Sec. 138, but ECS mandates are NOT cheques.
• ICDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer, (2002) 6 SCC 426 — Sec. 138 applies only to a "cheque" as defined under Sec. 6 NI Act.
• Several Karnataka High Court judgments have quashed Sec. 138 complaints where only ECS mandates existed and no physical cheque was issued.

Your immediate action: Obtain your loan sanction letters, loan account statements, and ECS mandate forms from Tata Capital's records and your own files. If you never signed a physical cheque as security or guarantee, the very maintainability of the complaint is questionable.

III. Understanding How Tata Capital May Have Filed This

Despite your belief that the loan was ECS-only, there are a few possibilities:

1. Undated/blank cheque collected at loan origination — Many NBFCs and banks collect a blank or post-dated cheque as "security" at the time of disbursal, even on ECS-based loans. You may have signed such a cheque and may not recall it.
2. Top-up loan documentation — When your 4 loans were restructured/top-upped, fresh cheques may have been collected.
3. Fraudulent or unauthorised instrument — If no cheque was ever issued, Tata Capital's complaint is not maintainable and you have grounds to seek quashing under Section 528 BNSS (formerly Sec. 482 CrPC) before the Karnataka High Court.

Action required: File an RTI / written request to Tata Capital demanding copies of all cheque instruments they relied upon in the complaint. Also obtain the complaint copy from the court — this will reveal what specific cheque (number, date, amount) is alleged to have bounced.

1. The Medical Emergency Factor

Your recent heart attack and angioplasty is a significant factor — both legally and on merits.

• You can seek exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 CrPC / Section 317 BNSS through a local advocate in Bangalore, at least for early hearings.
• Your medical records (discharge summary, angioplasty records, treating doctor's certificate) should be preserved. These are relevant both for seeking time from the court and as mitigating circumstances if the matter proceeds.
• Courts have consistently shown consideration in granting time/adjournments in such circumstances.

1. The Jurisdiction Issue — You Are in Chennai

Since the complaint is filed in Bangalore:

• You must engage a local advocate in Bangalore immediately — this is non-negotiable. The court will not accept your absence without representation.
• A Bangalore advocate can file a Vakalatnama and appear on your behalf, file an application under Section 317 BNSS (formerly Section 317 CrPC) for exemption of personal appearance, and buy you time to build your defence.

This is urgent. Check the summons date carefully. If the date has already passed or is imminent, you may need an urgent miscellaneous application for condonation and appearance.

1. Your Parallel Strategy

While defending the criminal complaint, you should simultaneously:

1. Engage with Tata Capital directly

• Write a formal letter (or engage your advocate to write) to Tata Capital's Legal/Recovery team acknowledging the default, citing genuine business loss and medical emergency, and proposing a structured repayment plan / one-time settlement (OTS).
• NBFCs are RBI-regulated entities and are often open to OTS in genuine hardship cases, especially when the borrower demonstrates good faith.
• A settlement will lead Tata Capital to withdraw the complaint (compounding under Section 147 NI Act is permissible).

1. Explore RBI Fair Practice Code protections

• Tata Capital, as a registered NBFC, is bound by the RBI Fair Practices Code for NBFCs. Aggressive recovery tactics, harassment, or misrepresentation in complaint filing can be reported to the RBI Ombudsman.

1. Document your financial distress

• Gather evidence of business failure: ITR for relevant years, bank statements, GST returns if applicable, any business closure correspondence.
• Medical bills, hospital records, insurance correspondence — all of this establishes the genuine nature of your default.

VII. Bottom Line Assessment

If you genuinely did not issue any physical cheque, the complaint under Sec. 138 may be legally not maintainable and quashable. However, the ground reality is that many personal loan borrowers sign blank cheques at origination and do not recall doing so — so verify this carefully before taking an adversarial stance with Tata Capital, as a negotiated settlement is almost always commercially smarter than prolonged criminal litigation.

Given your medical condition, job search, and genuine financial distress, a compassionate but professional approach — combining a strong legal defence with a sincere settlement offer — is the most strategically sound path.