Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru: Vani A. Shetty, XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, addressed a
Saket Courts, New Delhi: Swati Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate reiterated what is expected of an accused to rebut the statutory presumption against him
Supreme Court: Explaining the law relating to vicarious liability of the Directors of a company under Sections 138 and 141 of the
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi: Prayank Nayak, MM-01 acquitted the accused of offence under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable
Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi: Devanshu Sajlan, MM NI Act-05, while noting the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi: Bhanu Pratap Singh, MM (N.I. Act) found the accused guilty of an offence under Section 138
The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint.
Allahabad High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J., expressed that, Merely because the litigation has reached a revisional stage or that even beyond
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., decided a matter concerning dishonour of cheque. Petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of Rs
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of V.K. Jadhav and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., observed that, “…in the case of cheating, the
Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., refused to exercise and inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash a complaint
Chhattisgarh High Court relied on Supreme Court judgment In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881,
Madras High Court: P. Velmurugan, J., addressed a matter revolving around the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A
Here’s a short recap of what we covered under the High Court’s section on the SCC Online Blog for the month of
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., addressed a matter with regard to offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Instant
Allahabad High Court: Vivek Varma, J., held that factum of disputed service of notice requires adjudication on the basis of evidence and
Allahabad High Court: Vivek Varma, J., refused to quash a complaint case filed under Section 138 NI Act and directed the trial
Jammu and Kashmir High Court, Srinagar: Sanjeev Kumar, J., while addressing a matter in respect to Section 138 NI Act, stated that
Gujarat High Court: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J., compounded an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and set aside the
“Such conversion of complaints under Section 138 from summary trial to summons trial has been contributing to the delay in disposal of the cases.”