Depending on the nature of the wrongdoing, a person may pursue legal action against the perpetrator in a variety of ways, including civil and criminal actions, as well as out-of-court settlements if the parties involved agree to them. According to the nature of the case, remedies also vary; civil matter remedies differ from criminal matter remedies.

In order to comprehend these many issues, let’s analyze the relevant legal options.


Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code, which allows a bank/creditor to file a summary suit, is the most prevalent and well-known method for recovering money. In comparison to standard suits, summary suits are discarded more rapidly. The defendant has 10 days to appear in court once the complaint is filed and the summons is issued; otherwise, the court accepts the plaintiff’s accusations as legitimate and, if necessary, rewards the plaintiff. If the defendant appears in court, his defense will only be acknowledged if the judge is convinced that it is relevant to the case at hand. One cannot bring a summary action if the case involves punitive damages or any other amount that cannot be determined.

As per Punjab Courts Act, civil judges have unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction i.e. suit of any value can be instituted before the civil judge in the state of Punjab, Haryana and UT of Chandigarh. Similarly, in Delhi, suits up to Rs 20 lakhs lie before the district courts and any amount above 20 lakhs lie before the High Court of Delhi. The Civil Procedure Code and the Bengal, Agra, and Assam Civil Courts Act of 1880 govern the civil court’s powers and jurisdiction in Uttar Pradesh. In accordance with the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of 1991, Civil Judges has limitless monetary jurisdiction and are authorised to hear cases of any value.

Any suit of value above Rs 1 crore can be instituted before the National Company Law Tribunal by also invoking the provisions of IBC, 2016 and Companies Act.

Another option is the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, which governs the recovery of money from instruments such as bills of exchange and checks. Several provisions of the Act illustrate the procedure for recovering funds under a particular instrument. In accordance with Section 138, a legal notice must be delivered to the defaulter within 30 days after receiving the cheque return notice in the event of a returned check. The payee may file a criminal complaint under this section if the check guarantor fails to make a replacement payment within 30 days of receiving the notification. However, the complaint must be filed with a judge’s court within one month after the expiration of the notice period; else, your lawsuit will be prohibited. In the case of liability, the defaulter may be penalised with a two-year prison sentence and/or a fine of up to double the amount of the check.


You also have the option of initiating criminal proceedings under the Indian Penal Code of 1860 against the defaulter. You may document an incidence of criminal breach of trust, deception, or even mischief. However, a criminal proceeding often takes a considerable amount of time to conclude. Therefore, you may waste significant time and effort attempting to reclaim your money in court.


Choosing an out-of-court settlement, such as mediation, arbitration, or conciliation, if the other party is also keen to settle, is one of the quickest and most cost-effective means for collecting money, assuming that the other party is also willing to settle in this manner. In the event that the dispute is sent to an arbitrator, the arbitrator hears both parties and issues a binding decision. The damages must be supported by three factors. First, if it is invalid; second, if the defendant is not given sufficient time to submit the case; and third, if he was not told about the appointment of the arbitrator. In fact, if a proposal by an interministerial group established a year ago to investigate approach and administrative changes to handle the vast number of pending cases is accepted, cases involving dishonoured checks will be resolved solely through mediation or arbitration, assuagement/conciliation, or settlement by lok adalats.

Hence in order to simplify all the portions for clarity understanding here’s given the basic understanding which is:

  • Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code provides for summary suits.
  • Section 406 talks about criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code.
  • Section 417 covers cheating under the IPC.
  • Section 420 provides for punishment for cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property under the IPC.
  • Section 426 provides for punishment for mischief under IPC.


Consumer Forum handles situations in which there is a defect in the product or a deficiency in the service; it does not handle cases in which there is no defect in the product or deficiency in the service; and it is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. Consumer Forum does not deal with money recovery; however, if the money recovery is associated with the sale of defective goods or a shortage of services, Consumer Forum can handle such cases.


“Kanpur Vidyut Supply Company vs Ram Kishun Verma & Anr. on 07/01/2015 National Consumer Disputes Redressal” 

While there, the complaint secured an electricity connection for household use. He asserts that he departed the home on August 19, 1994. On August 16, 1994, the electrical connection was cut. According to the complaint, following the aforementioned disconnection, he paid Rs. 234.97/- for the last bill dated 27-08-1994.

The complainant was then transferred to a Type IV quarter in the same neighbourhood. The complaint asserts that his Rs. 720/- security deposit was not refunded, despite the fact that the electricity was off. The petitioners issued a bill for Rs. 1,35,245/- to the complainant. He was compelled to leave his residence and placed in civil arrest. Before being released from the civil prison from 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on 15-Jul-2003, he deposited Rs.50,000/- plus Rs.5,000 in connection fees.

The complainant later addressed the relevant District Forum, asking the restoration of the security deposit plus interest, as well as the refund of the money confiscated from him during his time in civil detention. Moreover, he asked for payment from the petitioners. In view of the case’s facts and circumstances, the command in question cannot be called unreasonable. Clearly, the petitioners must repay the money they already obtained from the lawsuit while the defendant was incarcerated in a civil jail. Therefore, we find no errors or violations in the challenged order. The petition for revision is without merit and is thus denied.”


The previous section describes the lender’s recovery of amount from the borrower. Every day, new circumstances regarding the recovery of funds arise. The aforementioned research details all of the actions a moneylender can take against the borrower.

Leave a Comment