The State of Karnataka and ors. Vs. K.C. Krishnegowda

.....declares that inchoate instruments are also valid and legally enforceable. in the case of a signed blank cheque, the drawer gives authority to the drawee to fill up the agreed liability. if the drawee were to dishonestly fill up any excess liability and the extent of liability if it becomes bona fide matter of civil dispute in such case, the drawer has no obligation to facilitate the encashment of cheque. if the accused were to prove that there is a bona fide dispute with regard to the extent of liability, the dishonour of cheque under such circumstances does not attract prosecution under section 138 of n.i. act. section 138; complaint under dishonour of cheque issued for discharge of credit liability held, it is admitted that the company has issued circular instructions to all its dealers to deposit signed blank cheques as a security for credit supply. the object of such insistence is to see that if there is a default on the part of the dealer, the company would fill up the cheque showing the amount due as on that day payable by the dealer as a measure for effective recovery of dues. the very scheme of procedure adopted shows that the cheques are not issued in respect of any current existing ascertained liability. the words for discharge of any debt or other liability in section 138 of the act should be interpreted to mean current existing or part ascertained liabilities. the cheque issue in respect of future liabilities not in existence as on the date of cheque would not attract prosecution under section 138 of the act. - that is what precisely pointed-out by the tribunal in the impugned order......before the karnataka administrative tribunal in application no. 4927/2005. by the impugned order at annexure-a dated 23.12.2005 the tribunal allowed the application, set aside the transfer order and directed to continue the respondent herein in the same post in which he was working prior to his transfer. questioning the legality and correctness of the same, the state and the officers of cauvery neeravari nigam have filed this writ petition praying to quash the impugned order.2. the impugned order is challenged after a lapse of six months. the main contention of the petitioners is that the respondent being a group-a officer and cauvery neeravari nigam limited being a company which is under the control of the state government, the state government is the competent authority to transfer the respondent and the transfer order was in public interest. the tribunal considered this contention and held that placement of even officers borrowed on deputation will be made by the managing director of the company, who is the chief executive. it is also held that managing director has the full power and authority to make changes in placements and therefore, the state government having lent the services of the respondent to the company, should not have posted him directly to harangi right bank canal sub-division. the conclusion arrived at by the tribunal cannot be said wrong. the government having lent the services of respondent to the company, should have withdrawn it and then posted him to any place. it cannot transfer the respondent directly. that is what precisely pointed-out by the tribunal in the impugned order. we are in full agreement with the same and therefore we decline to interfere in the matter.3. writ petition stands dismissed.