Category: 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”

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…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 139 – Section 139 of the Act is an example of reverse onus clause and therefore once the issuance of the cheque has been admitted and even the signature on the cheque has been admitted, there is always a presumption in favour of the complainant that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH APS FOREX SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. SHAKTI INTERNATIONAL FASHION LINKERS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan and M. R.…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – Suspension of sentence: Section 148 Has Retrospective Application, But 143A Is Prospective HELD non-compliance of the condition can very well hold that the suspension of sentence stands vacated due to non-compliance

NI Act: Section 148 Has Retrospective Application, But 143A Is Prospective, Reiterates SC [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini 8 Jan 2020 4:57 PM The Supreme Court has reiterated that Section 148…

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Sections 118(a) and 138 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 313 – Dishonour of cheque – Appeal against acquittal – it is presumed that the cheques in question were drawn for consideration and the holder of the cheques i.e., the appellant received the same in discharge of an existing debt. The onus, thereafter, shifts on the accused-appellant to establish a probable defence so as to rebut such a presumption, which onus has not been discharged by the respondent.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UTTAM RAM — Appellant Vs. DEVINDER SINGH HUDAN AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Criminal…

You missed