Advocate Prakhar Gupta

In the modern era of digital finance, automated payments like NACH (National Automated Clearing House) and ECS (Electronic Clearing Service) have become the backbone of loan EMIs, insurance premiums, and utility bills. However, when these auto-debits fail, it isn't just a banking "glitch"—it can trigger a serious criminal offense under Section 25 of the Payment and Settlement Systems (PSS) Act, 2007. If you are facing a digital payment dishonor or seeking recovery for a bounced mandate in Kota, understanding the legal landscape is vital. Advocate Prakhar Gupta, a leading legal expert in Kota, provides this comprehensive guide on managing Section 25 cases, legal notices, and court settlements. Understanding Section 25 of the PSS Act Section 25 is essentially the digital counterpart to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (Cheque Bounce). It states that if an electronic funds transfer (EFT) is dishonored due to insufficient funds or because it exceeds the credit li...

When a dispute reaches a Lok Adalat, the goal is a peaceful and swift resolution. However, what happens when the settlement is reached, a cheque is issued, and it subsequently bounces? This creates a complex legal intersection between civil decrees and criminal prosecution. Understanding the Legal Framework To determine if a dishonoured cheque after a settlement is a civil or criminal matter, we must look at two primary statutes: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881: This handles the criminal aspect of cheque dishonour. It treats a bounced cheque as a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment, heavy fines, or both, provided it was issued to discharge a "legally enforceable debt." Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987: This states that every award made by a Lok Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court. It is final, binding, and cannot be appealed. Is it a Criminal Offence or a Civil Liability? It can be both. While a Lok Adalat a...