Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Cheque Dishonour

Cheque Dishonour

Cheque – Quashing of complaint at a pre-trial stage – the accused may be given an un-merited advantage in the criminal process – –when the cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant – the accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption

Apr 28, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATHISH BABU UNNIKRISHNAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – When a cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by the drawee, it will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a consideration which is a legally recoverable amount; such presumption of course, is rebuttable by proving to the contrary – Onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence and the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is on preponderance of probabilities – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act uphold.

Dec 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K.S. RANGANATHA — Appellant Vs. VITTAL SHETTY — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of cheque – Quashing of criminal proceedings -There are sufficient averments in the complaint to raise a prima facie case against them – It is only at the trial that they could take recourse to the proviso to Section 141 and not at the stage of issuance of process – It is evident that the principal grounds of challenge which have been set up on behalf of the appellants are all matters of defence at the trial –

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL TODI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna,…

Cheque Dishonour

Security Cheque – Dishonour – A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. ‘Security’ in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. HELD the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIPATI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS SON GAURAV SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R.…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of cheque – Quashing of complaint – Mere fact that a suit is pending before the High Court challenging the validity of the compromise deed would furnish no cogent basis to quash the proceedings under Section 138 – Once the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are fulfilled, the statute clearly stipulates that “such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence” -Question as to whether the liability exists or not is clearly a matter of trial . serious error ofSingle Judge in allowing the petition under Section 482 to quash

Oct 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S GIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MANOJ GOEL — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Cheque Dishonour

(NI) – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – Appellants are the Directors of the Company and they are incharge – Indisputedly, on the presentation of the cheque of Rs.10,00,000/­ (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) dated 2nd June 2012, the cheque was dishonoured due to “funds insufficient” in the account and after making due compliance, complaint was filed and after recording the statement of the complainant, proceedings were initiated by the learned Magistrate and no error has been committed by the High Court in dismissing the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC under the impugned judgment.

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ASHUTOSH ASHOK PARASRAMPURIYA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S. GHARRKUL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and Abhay…

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