Supreme Court of India Judgements

46670 Judgements hosted as on 9/12/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cheque Dishonour

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. )…

Cheque Dishonour

U/S 56 r w S 15 of the N I Act, 1881, an endorsement may be made by recording the part-payment of the debt in the cheque or in a note appended to the cheque – If the unendorsed cheque is dishonoured on presentation, the offence u/ S 138 would not be attracted since the cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment.

Oct 12, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DASHRATHBHAI TRIKAMBHAI PATEL — Appellant Vs. HITESH MAHENDRABHAI PATEL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli, JJ.…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of cheque – Offence by company – High Court should not interfere under Section 482 of the Code at the instance of an accused unless it comes across some unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the Director/partner of a firm could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques.

Sep 20, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH S.P. MANI AND MOHAN DAIRY — Appellant Vs. DR. SNEHALATHA ELANGOVAN — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and J.B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cheque Dishonour

Whether on similar set of allegations of fact the accused can be tried for an offence under NI Act which is special enactment and also for offences under IPC unaffected by the prior conviction or acquittal and, the bar of Section 300(1) Cr.P.C. would attract for such trial? Larger bennch.

Aug 16, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH J. VEDHASINGH — Appellant Vs. R.M. GOVINDAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Abdul Nazeer and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cheque Dishonour

CrPC) – Section 205 – Magistrate may dispence with personal appearance of accused – In any event there could be no justification for not dispensing with the personal appearance of the Appellants, when the Company had entered appearance through an authorized officer. HELD all directors summoned on the basis of a statement that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, without anything more, does not fulfil the requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act.

Aug 15, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SUNITA PALITA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PANCHAMI STONE QUARRY — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed

Constitution Service

Classification of Military casualties and the eligibility for Liberalised Family Pension — Battle Casualty —Illness Caused by Extreme Climatic Conditions as Battle Casualty — The Court establishes that a soldier’s death due to illness resulting from extreme climatic conditions while on duty near a sensitive border area (such as the Line of Control) can be categorized as a ‘Battle Casualty’ — This expands the interpretation of what constitutes a battle casualty under military regulations. – Liberalised Family Pension (LFP) — Application of Category E (f) — The judgment clarifies that deaths occurring in war-like situations, including those near international borders or lines of control due to environmental stresses, fall under clause (f) of category E of the relevant military order — This broadens the scope of eligibility for LFP under such circumstances.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 27 — Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 384, 364, 302 and 201 — Murder — Circumstantial Evidence — The Supreme Court acquitted the appellant of murder charges as the prosecution failed to prove the crucial link of the accused’s disclosure leading to the discovery of skeletal remains under Section 27 and the DNA evidence was also found to be inconclusive due to lack of proper collection of samples. – Proof of Disclosure Statements under Section 27 — Voluntariness and Uninfluenced Nature — The Court reiterates that the information provided by an accused under Section 27 must be voluntary and uninfluenced by threat, duress, or coercion.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Arms Act, 1959 — Sections 25, 54 and 59 — Buttondar knife — Specific Intent Required — The court clarifies that mere possession of a knife covered by a notification like the DAD Notification is not sufficient to constitute an offense under the Arms Act — There must be specific intent to use it for the prohibited purposes such as “manufacture, sale, or possession for sale or test.” – The prosecution must clearly allege and prove the intent of the accused to use the weapon for the specified prohibited purposes — Absence of such allegation in the charge-sheet renders the proceedings defective.

Dec 8, 2024 sclaw