Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The complainant woefully failed to account for the amount of Rs 6,11,071/- which was due on him towards the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount represented on the cheque in question was a legally recoverable debt.
Calcutta High Court noted that the impugned notice has not been produced before the Court, thus not proved, the case’s foundation is wrong and thus not maintainable.
“Any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate that some person, has committed an offence, will fall within the meaning of ‘complaint’. Pertinently, the definition specifically excludes a police report.”
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”.
In the instant matter of cheque bounce, on the date of presentation of the cheque, the company which allegedly issued the cheque was no more existence.
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.
Supreme Court: In the case where the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the offence under Section 138 of the
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and AS Bopanna* and Hima Kohli, JJ has held that when the complainant/payee
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of the term ‘debt or any other liability’ under Section 138 of the NI Act, the bench
Supreme Court: In a case relating to dishonour of cheques where it was alleged that the complaint was filed by the managing
“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.”
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A Two-Member Bench comprising of S.J. Mukhopadhaya (Chairperson) and Bansi Lal Bhat (Member-Judicial), JJ. dismissed an appeal
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Jayant Nath, J., admitted a petition filed for winding up of respondent company.
Madras High Court: In a Single Judge Bench decision comprising of P. Kalaiyarasan, J., accused was acquitted of the charges under Section
Allahabad High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. declined to quash the order passed by the Judicial
Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of K. Somashekar, J., decided a criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) CrPC, wherein
Orissa High Court: A petition under Section 482 of CrPC was decided by a Single Judge Bench comprising of S.K. Sahoo, J.,
Supreme Court: In the matter where the question as to whether the dishonour of a post-dated cheque given for repayment of loan