Supreme Court of India Judgements

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

Category: Cheque Dishonour

Cheque Dishonour

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 258 – Cheque Bouncing Cases – Power to Stop Proceedings – Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to complaints under Section 138 of the Act. B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – Expeditious Trial – Directions

Apr 17, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH IN RE: EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SECTION 138 OF N.I. ACT 1881. ( Before : S.A. Bobde, CJI, Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, A.S.…

Cheque Dishonour

(NI) – Ss 138, 139 – Dishonour of cheque – Presumption – It is well settled that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act are quasi criminal in nature, and the principles which apply to acquittal in other criminal cases are not applicable in the cases instituted under the Act.HELD Section 139 of the Act, a presumption is raised that the holder of a cheque received the cheque for the discharge of debt

Mar 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMETI VIJ — Appellant Vs. M/S PARAMOUNT TECH FAB INDUSTRIES — Respondent ( Before : Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cheque Dishonour

Section 138 of the NI Act does not speak about the joint liability – Even in case of a joint liability, in case of individual persons, a person other than a person who has drawn the cheque on an account maintained by him, cannot be prosecuted for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. Two private individuals cannot be said to be “other association of individuals”

Mar 14, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ALKA KHANDU AVHAD — Appellant Vs. AMAR SYAMPRASAD MISHRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and M. R. Shah,…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Appeal was pending and matter settled in Lok Adalat in acknowledgment of liability of accused to complainant — Cheque issued pursuant to order of Lok  Adalat, also dishonoured — Fresh  cause of action under arises S. 138 of N.I. Act — Complaint filed u/S. 138 of N.I. Act — Order quashing complaint set aside.

Apr 1, 2020 sclaw

2020(1) Indian Civil Cases 628 (S.C.) SUPREME  COURT  OF INDIA Before :– INDIRA BANERJEE & M.R. SHAH, JJ. Criminal Appeal No.1580 of 2019 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Cr)…

Cheque Dishonour

V IMP :: Expeditious Adjudication Of Cheque Bounce Cases: SC Registers Suo Motu Writ Petition HELD “A matter which is supposed to be disposed of summarily by the trial court in six months, it took seven years for this case to be disposed of at the trial court level. A dispute of such nature has remained pending for 15 years in various courts, taking judicial time and space up till this Court”

Mar 7, 2020 sclaw

Expeditious Adjudication Of Cheque Bounce Cases: SC Registers Suo Motu Writ Petition [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 7 March 2020 7:28 PM The Supreme Court has registered a Suo Motu…

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