Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of the term ‘debt or any other liability’ under Section 138 of the NI Act, the bench
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjeev Kumar, J., held that the sentence of fine under Section 138 of N.I.Act must
Kerala High Court: Gopinath P., J., held that adding or omitting prefix like M/s, Mr And Mrs. while drawing the cheque is
The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint.
Allahabad High Court: Vivek Varma, J., refused to quash a complaint case filed under Section 138 NI Act and directed the trial
“A Section 138 proceeding can be said to be a “civil sheep” in a “criminal wolf’s” clothing, as it is the interest of the victim that is sought to be protected, the larger interest of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving a court in cheque bouncing cases.”
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., upheld the judgement of High Court of
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., addressed a matter wherein it was reiterated that the initial burden of proving the burden of
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Gurvinder Singh Gill, J., observed that, Right to appeal against conviction is an invaluable statutory right vested upon
And, that’s a wrap! Here’s the list of our coverage on Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 2020. [Allahabad High Court] All
Karnataka High Court: John Michael Cunha J., allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The case involves default under Section
Tripura High Court: S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., highlights the essence of the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, in light of the object of a
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara, J., setting aside the conviction against the petitioner, discussed the effect of compromise between the parties
Allahabad High Court: While deciding a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Suresh Kumar Gupta, J., dismissed the
Supreme Court: On the question of liability to be proceeded with for offence under Section 68 of FERA, 1973, the bench of
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vinod Goel, J. dismissed a revision petition filed against the order of Additional District
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Chander Bhushan Barowalia, J. allowed a criminal appeal filed under Section 378