Calcutta High Court delved into the legalities surrounding the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, emphasizing that it is a “rebuttable presumption”.
Kerala High Court stated that the petitioner failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the cheque in question was not aimed at discharging any legally enforceable debt.
Allahabad High Court noted that the Supreme Court has issued several directions to deal with the pendency of dishonor of cheque cases and for their expeditious disposal
by Sugandh Kochhar†
“The question of debt barred by limitation is to be decided on basis of evidence as, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact”.
Allahabad High Court said that in the eye of law, wife and husband have separate entity. The present case is not a case that the wife, sole proprietor of the Firm had provided the cheque signed by or on behalf of the applicant
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of nature of proceedings under the two Acts are quite different and would not intercede each other.
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited and that the Madras High Court ‘could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† Anwesha Pal†† and Yashwardhan Singh†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 11
by Ankur Mishra†
“Quashing of a complaint is a serious matter. Complaint cannot be quashed for the asking. For quashing of a complaint, it must be shown that no offence is made out at all against the Director or Partner.”
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Nazeer and JK Maheshwari*, JJ has called upon a larger bench to decide if on similar
Supreme Court: In a case where an offender under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was denied the
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petitions, the question that came up before that Court
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary, JJ. dismissed a petition which was filed praying
Supreme Court: Explaining the law on vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the bench of Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna*,
Madras High Court: Teekaa Raman, J., observed that there is no mandatory provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act that both the signature
Orissa High Court: R K Pattnaik, J. dismissed the petition and held that the ground on which the petition is raised is
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Atul Sreedharan, J. allowed a petition which was filed for quashing of Crime which was registered for an
Karnataka High Court: M. Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order regarding attachment of property and auction notification. The