LawCite Advocates Secure Remarkable ₹33 Cr Cheque Bounce Victory

Author: Advocate Vipin Sharma

With: Advocate Ram Kunwar & Advocate Govind Gupta

Firm: LawCite Advocates – A Litigation & Strategy Boutique Firm

In a major courtroom victory, LawCite Advocates successfully secured acquittal in 11 cheques bounce cases involving alleged dishonour of cheques worth approximately ₹14 Crores, filed under Section 138 r/w 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“N.I. Act”). The trial involved a deeper financial dispute where the alleged underlying liability was projected at over ₹33 Crores.

The complaints were filed by Catalyst Trusteeship Limited (formerly Milestone Trusteeship Services Ltd.) before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, 33rd Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai, against M/s. Greens Farm Tech Pvt. Ltd., and its directors Mr. Ramesh Gowda and Ms. Ramya G.C.

The defence team led by Advocate Vipin Sharma, with Advocate Ram Kunwar and Advocate Govind Gupta, appearing on record, argued a multi-layered legal strategy, exposing fatal procedural lapses, evidentiary infirmities, and lack of enforceable debt under the law.

Grounds of Defence and Key Legal Outcomes

Invalid Representation of Complainant:

The complainant failed to prove the valid authorization of its representative to file the complaint. Resolutions relied upon were secondary copies, and original minutes of board meetings were never produced, despite challenges. The Court ruled that the complaint was not maintainable due to lack of legal authorization a critical procedural defence taken by the team.

Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Liability

The Court found that:

· No clear evidence was produced regarding actual loan disbursement.

· Crucial documents such as MIS reports, bank statements, and debenture sale data were withheld.

· Debentures were sold by Karvy Capital Ltd. yet proceeds and liability adjustments were not disclosed. These gaps fatally undermined the complainant’s claim that the cheques were issued in discharge of any liability.

Time-Barred Complaint:

Although the notice under Section 138 was served on 06.01.2018, the complaint was filed on 22.02.2018, exceeding the 30-day limitation. The Court held the explanation unsatisfactory and declared the complaint barred by limitation under Section 142(b) of the N.I. Act.

Cheques Issued as Security, Not for Discharge of Debt:

The defence successfully argued that the cheques were issued only as security and were misused. The complainant failed to rebut this with concrete documentary evidence, thereby losing the benefit of the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 & 139 of the N.I. Act.

Inadmissibility of Secondary Documents:

The complainant heavily relied on photocopies of key agreements, including trust deeds and escrow documents, without producing primary evidence or proving why originals were unavailable. The Court ruled these documents inadmissible, significantly weakening the complainant’s foundation.

Court's Conclusion:

“The complainant company has failed to prove that the accused nos. 1 to 3 have issued cheques... in discharge of their legally enforceable liability... It is also proved that this complaint is not filed within the prescribed limitation period, so it is not maintainable.”

- Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate H. R. Patil, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai

The LawCite Advocates Approach:

Lawcite’s litigation team, led by Adv. Vipin Sharma, Adv. Ram Kunwar, and Adv. Govind Gupta, meticulously built the defence case over multiple years of proceedings, filing written arguments, conducting cross-examinations, and raising objections to maintainability and evidentiary admissibility. The result: 100% acquittal in all 11 cases, protecting the accused from wrongful conviction and criminal stigma in high-value commercial disputes.

Conclusion:

This decisive win reaffirms Lawcite’s position as a leading litigation firm in cheque dishonour and financial fraud defence. Our firm remains committed to delivering strategic, ethical, and results-oriented legal representation in complex financial and criminal