Supreme Court of India Judgements

46650 Judgements hosted as on 11/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cheque Dishonour

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Sections 138 and 139 – Dishonour of cheque – Appeal against acquittal – Rebuttal of rebuttal – Once the presumption under Section 139 was given effect to, the Courts ought to have proceeded on the premise that the cheque was, indeed, issued in discharge of a debt/liability. The entire focus would then necessarily have to shift on the case set up by the accused, since the activation of the presumption has the effect of shifting the evidential burden on the accused. The nature of inquiry would then be to see whether the accused has discharged his onus of rebutting the presumption. If he fails to do so, the Court can straightaway proceed to convict him – Order of acquittal set aside – Appeal allowed.

Oct 18, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH JAIN — Appellant Vs. AJAY SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Aravind Kumar and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. of 2023…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of cheque – Quashing of complaint – Merely because somebody is managing the affairs of the company, per se, he would not become in charge of the conduct of the business of the company or the person responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company – Person liable is in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company – Complaint quashed

Oct 15, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SIBY THOMAS — Appellant Vs. M/S. SOMANY CERAMICS LTD. — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 138 and 142 – Dishonour of Cheque – – The limitation period, as per Article 34 of the Limitation Act, begins when the fixed time expires, in this case, December 2016 – Therefore, the cheque, dated April 28, 2017, falls within the limitation period –

Sep 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. HYMAVATHI — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

Cheque Dishonour

Partner in firm – Powers u/s 482 of the Cr P C can be exercised by the High Court in case when it comes across unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the partner of the firm did not have any concern with the issuance of cheques – The case in hand is not of that kind – Impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the summoning order and the complaints against the respondent are set aside – Appeal allowed.

Aug 27, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RIYA BAWRI ETC. — Appellant Vs. MARK ALEXANDER DAVIDSON & OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of cheque – Setting aside of conviction and sentence – Settlement between with parties – Respondents will have no objection as the outstanding amount has already been received by them – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is set aside

Jun 20, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH R VARATHARAJAN — Appellant Vs. RAMASAMY — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No 1698 of 2023…

Cheque Dishonour I B C

Dishonour of cheque – Liability – the criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act will stand terminated only in relation to the corporate debtor if the same is taken over by a new management – Section 138 proceedings in relation to the signatories/directors who are liable/covered by the two provisos to Section 32A(1) will continue in accordance with law.

Mar 19, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJAY KUMAR RADHEYSHYAM GOENKA — Appellant Vs. TOURISM FINANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S.…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of cheque – Transfer of case from one state to another state – Power of SCOI Court to transfer pending criminal proceedings under Section 406 Cr.P.C. does not stand abrogated thereby in respect of offences under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 – Appeal allowed.

Feb 23, 2023 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGESH UPADHYAY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. ATLANTA LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Transfer Petition (Criminal)…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw