1) Reissued cheques that are stopped by the bank or issuer, creating problems for all those who are paid with the cheque for goods or services provided and; 2. If the cheques are dishonoured upon presentation, you will have to appeal within 30 days of the Date the Bank informs the recipient of the dishonour of the cheque when filing a claim file under Section 138 NI Act, which begins with the Section 138 NI Act. The applicant asked the Delhi High Court to quash the grievances on the grounds that the dishonour of the cheques issued under the guarantee does not fall under Section 138, because: (a) the cheques were given back as collateral; and (b) no debt or liability is due at the time the cheques are issued. Accordingly, the applicant submitted that the cheques were amounts to be paid in the future. The Delhi Supreme Court rejected this assertion. The Tribunal emphasized the specificity of the case, as established in point 3.1(iii) of the loan contract as an example of coverage for the execution of cheques “for the repayment of monthly payments by appointment and on the interest rates payable”. It was found that the payments, as soon as they expired on the day of the loan agreement cheques, would be within the scope of Section 138. In the event that the borrower deposits these cheques with the lender, subject to the terms of the loan, a default upon repayment of the loan amount would allow the lender to deposit the cheques for the unpaid amounts and recover them. In the event of insufficient balance in the borrower`s account, the cheque is “bounced” – that is, disgraced, giving the lender the right to act under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, under which the dishonour of a cheque is a criminal offence. While the courts have had differing views on this issue and whether it is possible to act in accordance with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, recent Supreme Court decisions seem to confirm this. The complainant was a director of a company active in the power generation sector and also a co-accused. The respondent (a Crown corporation) agreed to make a loan to the complainant`s company to finance a biomass-based energy project in Andhra Pradesh.
As part of the loan agreement, the company granted the respondent cheques as security for the repayment of the loan amount in increments. The cheques were disgraced and the respondent then filed a complaint with the relevant Court in Delhi. 2) the opposite in which a person must be promised goods or services, but must not receive them and stop the cheque. When a request for payment of a cheque is made before the cheque is received, the cheque is not properly submitted to the payment because of the request. The Commonwealth Bank of Australia`s rules and conditions for cheques (2014: Section 1.7.6 “Dishonest Cheques”) clearly state that a cheque is disgraced if it is presented on the cheque before the next date, because “… The cheque has a date in the future. This cheque is called a post-anedated cheque and can only be paid on that date.  A “rewritten cheque” is only a change if it is written or drawn, it becomes a “cheque” if it is payable on request. The post-born cheque is not payable until the date displayed on the surface of the document.
It does not become the cheque until the date indicated and before that, there is still a passage to section 5 of the act. As a change, a post-dated cheque remains negotiable, but will not become a “cheque” until it becomes “payable on demand.”