Debt in cash above ₹20,000 in contravention of Sec.269ss of Income Tax Act does not render the transaction unenforceable under N.I.Act

Next, he submitted that the payment of more than ₹20,000/- in cash violates the provisions of Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which prohibits grant of any loan or advance over a sum of ₹20,000/- in cash. He submitted that since the said loan was in violation to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the same was not an enforceable debt. He relied upon by the decision of the Bombay High Court in Sanjay Mishra v. Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikkin and Anr.: 2009 (4) Mah.L.J.155 in support of his contention.[Para No.11]

    The contention that the debt owed by the petitioner was rendered unenforceable by virtue of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is also unmerited.[Para No.13]

    Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 prohibits making of any payment in cash above a sum of ₹20,000/-. Thus, any person violating the same would attract imposition of penalties under the said Act. However, the same does not render the said debt un-enforceable or precludes the lender from recovering the same.[Para No.14]

Employee on continuous and long-period part-time service has not right to be regularised

In paragraph 8 of State of Tamil Nadu v. Singamuthu [(2017) 4 SCC 113], the Honourable Supreme Court laid down as follows:

"8 Part-time of casual employment is meant to serve the exigencies of administration. It is a settled principle of law that continuance in service for long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularisation in service. The person who is engaged on temporary or casual basis is well aware of the nature of his employment and he consciously accepted the same at the time of seeking employment. Generally, while directing that temporary or part-time appointments be regularised or made permanent, the courts are swayed by the long period of service rendered by the employees. However, this may not be always a correct approach to adopt especially when the scheme of regularisation is missing from the rule book and regularisation casts huge financial implications on public exchequer." (emphasis given) "[Para No.21]

    Going by the ratio decidendi in the above-cited precedents, the law is well settled that merely because a person claims to be in continuous service for a long period, on part-time basis, it does not confer on him any right to seek regularisation of service. The courts should not be swayed by a long period, especially when the scheme of regularisation is absent. Further, there can be no rule of the thumb particularly without the existence of a vacancy.[Para No.22]