Supreme Court of India Judgements

46448 Judgements hosted as on 05/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cheque Dishonour

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)…

Cheque Dishonour

Cheque Dishonour – Company – By virtue of the office they hold as Managing Director or Joint Managing Director, these persons are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company. HELD Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable under Section 141 of the Act. A director in a company cannot be deemed to be in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business

Nov 27, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PAWAN KUMAR GOEL — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. )…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120-B read with Section 420 – Cheating – The case involves fraudulent transactions by accused in connivance with Indian Bank officials resulting in interest-free advances to the petitioners – The main issue is whether the petitioners were involved in cheating the bank and if they availed any undue benefit from the fraudulent transactions – The petitioners argued that they were not involved in the cheating, had not availed any undue benefit, and that the transactions were normal business dealings – The court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, upholding the Trial Court’s conviction of the petitioners for cheating the bank through unauthorized transactions.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5 – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 1663 days – The State of U.P. filed a SLP against an order dated 13.11.2009 by the Allahabad High Court, with a delay of 1,633 days – The main issue was the condonation of the significant delay in filing the SLP – The State argued that the delay was due to the time taken for obtaining legal opinion and permissions, and later, the realization that the appeal was not filed initially – The application for condonation of delay was dismissed, and consequently, the SLP was also dismissed – The court found the explanation for the delay unsatisfactory, especially since the State was aware of the High Court’s order when it was passed – The court did not find sufficient cause to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the SLP.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Property Matters

Partition Suit – The dispute involves partition of properties left by Late ‘R’ with the main contention over roof rights of a property in Kota and another in Jaipur – The primary issue is the valuation of roof rights for further construction and the equal distribution of property among co-sharers – The appellants argue that the valuation report failed to assess the value of roof rights, which would affect the overall property valuation and entitlement of co-sharers – The respondents maintain that the property valuation and shares were appropriately determined by the approved Valuer and upheld by both the Trial Court and High Court – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in revaluating the property or altering the determined shares of the parties – The Court emphasized the importance of family ties over property disputes and suggested alternative dispute resolution methods for amicable settlements – The Court referenced the case of Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited, advocating for ADR in family-related property disputes – The Supreme Court concluded that revisiting the valuation and partition would only prolong litigation and upheld the decisions of the lower courts.

May 5, 2024 sclaw
Constitution Municipal Laws

West Bengal Municipal(Building) Rules, 2007 – Rule 50 – Open spaces for building in areas other than municipalities in hill areas – The appellants challenge the High Court of Calcutta’s order regarding a contempt petition related to their residential property construction and its compliance with Rule 50 of Rules, 2007 – The appellants argue that the writ petition was a private matter and should not have been entertained by the High Court – They also claim that municipal authorities are unfairly pressuring them due to the contempt proceedings – The respondent claims that the appellants violated the sanctioned building plan, justifying the High Court’s direction for an enquiry – The Supreme Court allowed the appellants to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, ensuring their objections would be considered objectively without prejudice from the contempt or writ proceedings – The court expressed reservations about the High Court’s exercise of writ jurisdiction in a private dispute and suggested the civil court as the appropriate forum for grievances – The appeal was disposed of with the appellants given the liberty to challenge the enquiry report and show cause notice, without cost order.

May 5, 2024 sclaw