1) it is necessary to peruse consent terms signed by you 

is there a caluse that in event cheques are dishonoured full RS 1.50 cr would be payable 

whether consent terms are filed iun court ?

Firstly you have agreed to settle the matter by accepting Rs. 50 lakhs alone towards the lent amount of Rs. 1.50 crore, which seems to be unbelievable.

Secondly if you have agreed and accepted the cheque for Rs. 50 lakhs out of which three cheques were bounced, you can sue them for that remaining three cheques alone and not for the entire amount because you have already entered into a settlement agreement and accordingly he issue five cheques of Rs. 10 lakh each.       If the cheque date is within three years now, you may file a money recovery suit and if the cheque is within three months you can file a cheque bounce case under section 138 NI act.

For Section 138 NI Act, your enforceable amount is likely ₹30 lakh, not ₹1.5 crore. The original cheques of ₹75 lakh each were dishonoured, but the later compromise deed reduced the settled liability to ₹50 lakh. Since two ₹10 lakh cheques were honoured, only three dishonoured cheques of ₹10 lakh remain. If the original 138 complaint for ₹1.5 crore is still pending and the compromise was not recorded or compounded in court, the court may proceed on the original cheques, but the compromise is a strong defence/novation. Practically, unless you prove the compromise was conditional and breached, 138 recovery is limited to ₹30 lakh plus compensation.

In a recovery suit for ₹1.5 crore, your chances of getting the full amount are low if the compromise deed accepted ₹50 lakh as full and final settlement. Courts usually treat such a deed as novation, so the claim is restricted to the unpaid balance—₹30 lakh—plus interest, if the deed is valid. You could claim ₹1.5 crore only if the compromise was conditional, he breached it, and you expressly reserved the right to revive the original debt. Cash loans require strong proof: bank withdrawals, promissory note, FIR, and the deed. Limitation is also critical; delay may bar the suit.

For further action, consult an advocate immediately. For the three bounced ₹10 lakh cheques, issue a statutory demand notice within 30 days of dishonour if not already done, then file Section 138 within the next 15 days to one month. For recovery, file a summary suit for ₹30 lakh balance under the compromise deed or Order XXXVII CPC, or sue for ₹1.5 crore only if advised that the compromise is invalid. Preserve bank statements, withdrawal slips, promissory note, compromise deed, cheque return memos, FIR, and notices. Also consider a cheating/breach of trust complaint for false assurances and the closed account.

Dear Sir/Madam,

After reading your query in brief, It can be suggested that you can go for 3 cheques dishonour cases amounting to 30 lakh as you have done compromise for Rs 1.50 Cr, the same can't be enforced. However, the more detailed suggestion can be given after knowing the contents of compromise deed. 

Sir, as far as Sec.138 is concerned, you can only claim his legally enforceable liability. As per the settlement agreement, you had agreed for 50 lakhs in totality, out of which 20 lakhs have been received by you. The settlement deed is going to play a vital role in your litigation regarding the mode of payment, return of cheques, etc. In my opinion, you should go for the 138 case for remaining 20 lakhs amount upon settlement deed and simultaneously, you can file a civil recovery suit for 20 lakhs, as the settlement deed is there on which you have agreed for the amount of Rs. 50 lakhs in totality. However, you can file a private criminal complaint case before the concerned Magistrate Court for fraud, criminal breach of trust, cheating and claim the entire amount of ₹1.5 Crores from there as well along with the prayer for criminal action to be taken against your cousin. He may face jail time, of your perition is well drafted by an advocate who knows how to get it done. Good luck! 

- Since, if there is is no proof of payment in cash , then you can file the complaint under 138 of N.I.Act and there is maximum chances to get you amount. 

- Further on the ground of promissionary note , you can file a recovery suit before the Court , and there is also good chances to get the amount refund 

- Further, you can also file a recovery suit for getting the amount of cheques within a short period of time. 

- Remember that you will have to pay court fess for filing the civil suit i.e. recovery suit . 

You can contact me, if further suggestion needed. 

You have good chances to win both. Check whether they have some properties to which they can pay you if they lose. Also file a criminal case of cheating 

On the facts stated by you, there are two separate stages of liability which have to be examined: first, the original ₹1.50 crore transaction and the two original cheques/promissory note; and second, the subsequent ₹50 lakh family settlement under which five cheques of ₹10 lakh each were issued. The answer to whether your present Section 138 proceedings are for ₹1.50 crore or ₹30 lakh depends principally upon the wording and legal effect of the compromise deed.

For the original two cheques of ₹75 lakh each, if they were presented and dishonoured and the statutory requirements under Section 138 were complied with, the original ₹1.50 crore liability can potentially be pursued. The fact that the money was advanced in cash does not by itself make the transaction legally nonexistent, particularly where there is supporting bank withdrawal evidence, the promissory note, the original cheques and other contemporaneous material. However, because the amount is substantial and was allegedly paid in cash, the source, manner and circumstances of each payment will need to be proved carefully, and the tax-law implications should also be kept separate from the question of civil/NI Act enforceability.

The more important issue is the subsequent compromise. You accepted ₹50 lakh in settlement, and your cousin and his mother signed the compromise deed and issued five cheques of ₹10 lakh each. Two cheques were honoured and three were dishonoured. If the compromise deed records that the original ₹1.50 crore dispute was finally settled for ₹50 lakh, subject to payment of the five settlement cheques, then your claim ordinarily cannot simply continue for the entire ₹1.50 crore as though the settlement never occurred. The ₹50 lakh settlement becomes the critical document.

If the agreement provides that the settlement would become final only upon payment of the entire ₹50 lakh, and that on default the original proceedings/claims would remain alive or revive, your position is materially different. In that situation, the dishonour of the three ₹10 lakh cheques may permit you to pursue the unpaid ₹30 lakh settlement liability, while you may also have contractual grounds concerning the consequences of default. The Supreme Court has recognised that a subsequent cheque issued pursuant to a settlement can give rise to a fresh Section 138 cause of action where an enforceable liability continues to exist. SCi API

Therefore, I would not advise you to presently describe the Section 138 claim as automatically being ₹1.50 crore or automatically being ₹30 lakh without reading the compromise deed. The exact clauses dealing with “full and final settlement”, withdrawal/closure of existing cases, return of the original cheques, consequences of default and whether the settlement was conditional are decisive.

There is another important point. Your cousin's notice alleging that he paid the settlement amount in cash and that you failed to return the remaining three cheques needs to be answered carefully. You should not casually admit that the compromise discharged the entire original liability if that is not what the document says. Your reply should specifically state the actual amounts received, identify the two cheques that were honoured and the three that were dishonoured, and refer to the precise terms of the compromise. If the remaining three cheques were issued towards the unpaid settlement amount, that should be clearly pleaded.

Regarding the recovery suit

The same distinction applies to the civil recovery proceedings. If the compromise legally substituted the original ₹1.50 crore claim with a ₹50 lakh settlement, a recovery suit for the original ₹1.50 crore may face a serious objection unless the compromise itself preserves/revives the original liability upon default. In that situation, the immediately recoverable amount may be ₹30 lakh plus whatever contractual interest/costs are legally claimable, subject to the terms of the settlement.

Conversely, if the compromise expressly states that it was conditional upon complete payment and that failure to comply would revive the original liability, you may have a basis to rely upon the original ₹1.50 crore claim, subject to limitation and the exact contractual language. The Supreme Court has treated the effect of a settlement and subsequent dishonoured cheques as a question dependent upon the facts and the continuing existence of an enforceable liability. SCi API

Your promissory note for ₹1.50 crore is also significant, particularly because it is contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the alleged liability. It should be examined together with the bank withdrawal statements, the dates and amounts of each cash payment, the original cheques, the FIR/complaint in which the accused allegedly claimed that the cheques were stolen and signatures forged, the compromise deed, the five settlement cheques, bank return memos and the subsequent legal notice.

There is also a potentially important evidentiary contradiction: initially your cousin allegedly told the police that the original cheques had been stolen and the signatures were forged, whereas subsequently he voluntarily entered into a compromise and issued five fresh cheques towards settlement. The precise wording of the police statement/FIR and compromise should be examined because the contradiction may be relevant to credibility and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The NI Act provides statutory presumptions concerning negotiable instruments and cheques, although those presumptions remain rebuttable. India Code

What I would recommend now

Do not withdraw or compromise the pending Section 138 proceedings merely because the opposite party has issued the latest notice. First have the compromise deed examined clause-by-clause. In particular, establish whether it says:

₹50 lakh was an absolute full-and-final settlement; or ₹50 lakh was a conditional settlement payable in five instalments; or the original ₹1.50 crore liability stood extinguished immediately upon signing; or the original liability/cases would revive if the settlement failed.

That single distinction can materially change your position.

You should also preserve the bank statements showing the withdrawals used for the original cash payments, the ₹1.50 crore promissory note, original cheques, dishonour memos, FIR/complaint and police statement, the complete compromise deed, proof of the two ₹10 lakh payments, dishonour memos of the remaining three cheques, and the subsequent legal notice and your proposed reply.

Most importantly, please provide the complete compromise deed and the legal notice received from your cousin. After examining those two documents, it would be possible to give you a much more precise opinion on whether your legally recoverable claim is ₹1.50 crore, ₹30 lakh, or ₹30 lakh with an additional contractual claim arising from the default, and how the pending Section 138 proceedings should be structured.

For detailed legal advise you may connect on https://share.google/jCbuYXivLzFBy0dSK

The key issue is the compromise deed, not merely the original ₹1.50 crore transaction. If the compromise was a valid settlement of the earlier liability and you agreed to accept ₹50 lakh in full and final settlement, the subsequent proceedings may be governed by that settlement.

For the Section 138 NI Act cases, the amount recoverable would ordinarily depend upon the liability represented by the particular cheques and the terms of the compromise. If the ₹50 lakh settlement was conditional and the accused defaulted by not honouring the settlement cheques, the original liability may still be arguable, but this will depend heavily on the exact wording of the compromise.

Similarly, in a recovery suit, you cannot automatically claim ₹1.50 crore merely because that was the original transaction. The effect of the compromise, whether it extinguished/modified the original liability, and whether the settlement was breached are crucial.

You should have the original compromise deed, the five settlement cheques, bank-return memos, legal notice and the original promissory note/cheques examined together before deciding whether to proceed for ₹1.50 crore or the settlement amount.

Dear Querist

as per the settlement, you had agreed for the settlement amount of Rs. 50 Lakhs and out of which 20 Lakhs has been received hence there are 30 lakhs remaining amount and you cannot claim more than that now.

Dear Client,

It may largely depend on the wording of the compromise deed as to the nature of your claim. If you have accepted the said amount of ₹50 lakh as the total and final discharge of the loan of ₹1.50 crore, then it may become difficult for you to make a claim in respect of the balance amount later. However, if the deed states that the liability remains intact, it may be an added advantage for you. In relation to the bounced cheques, it may be possible to start action under section 138 of the NI Act, if all notice requirements and limitation requirements are followed. You may contact a lawyer with all relevant details.

Thank you for contacting us, if you have any further queries kindly do not hesitate to contact again. Thankyou.