A solar firm has supplied installed and commissioned 2 Nos of 200 LPD flat plate solar water heating systems as per MNRE specifications in our Boarding premises on the 26th of July 2013. A quotation was given by the firm on the 3rd of July 2013, for Rs.81,800/- with an estimated subsidy of Rs.24,540/- basing on which the above order was conformed and carried out. The firm had given a cheque for Rs.26,400/- as subsidy amount on the 27.10.2013. When I deposited the cheque, is was returned with a memo “ funds insufficient ”. A case was registered against the supplier in the court of the Hon’ble III special Magistrate, Cyberabad at Hayathnagar C.C.No.878 of 2015. The case is going on and may come for cross examination. Now the firm is saying that he has not received the subsidy from MNRE and the cheque was given only as a “security”. Do I have a chance of winning the case .
Asked 1 year ago in Criminal Law from Hyderabad, Telangana
1)firm had no business in giving cheque if it had not received the subsidy amount
2) when cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds and legal notice what was defence raised in reply to legal notice?
3) file RTI with the govt agency as to whether subsidy has been disbursed to the solar firm or not
4) since you have already filed case carry it to its logical conclusion
The defence taken by the firm has to be proved by it. When the order was executed it cannot be said that cheque was issued as a security.
Hi, As per law once the Cheque is issued and it is for the consideration, Now he can't says that cheque is issued only for security purpose and if he could so he has to communicate to you that there is no subsidy was given to you.
2. So don't worry you have good case on merits.
1) That the cheque was given as a security is a standard defence taken by all accused in a case of returned cheque.
2) From the facts narrated by you you have a case that can succeed. All depends on how the case is conducted and especially what is brought out in the cross examination.
3) If the basic criteria of cheque return case are proved you can get a favourable verdict.
you will win the case.
Subsidy cheque will only come to the vendor and not to the buyer.
The question of security for subsidy cheque does not arise at all.
in your case, the vendor has issued the cheque for 26,400-/- and he is liable to the bouncing of cheque.
The accused may take any stand to defend himself. The question is not about whether he got subsidy from government or not, he has agreed to the terms and conditions of execution of this deal and accordingly he issued a cheque for that amount.
Not receiving the subsidy is not your problem. He should have followed up with government agencies in that regard because it was his responsibility also that was the another condition to which he agreed while selling his product to you.
There is no question of issuing the cheque for security purpose. Where is the question of security in this when the matter has been agreed upon with the conditions specified already in the T and C of the transaction.
His stand is not maintainable and you may argue the issue on the above lines.