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.
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)…
Appeal—Dismissal in Default–Against an order of refusal readmitting the appeal which was dismissed in default appeal lies under 0.43 R.19 of CPC—Writ petition under Art.227 is not maintainable against such orders
2019(2) Law Herald (P&H) 929 (SC) : 2019 LawHerald.Org 721 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Civil…
Dishonour of Cheque—Offence by Company—Company not arraigned as an accused—High Court was wrong in observing that the Company can now be proceeded against—High Court ought to quash the proceedings
2019(2) Law Herald (P&H) 933 (SC) : 2019 LawHerald.Org 612IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIABeforeHon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. ChandrachudCriminal Appeal No. 1465 of 2009 Himanshu v.B. Shivamurthy…
“Therefore, in that circumstance even if the other aspects are not adverted to, the very fact that the Analyst’s report being served not being proved and the sample being taken in an appropriate manner not being established, it would be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction is not justified”
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.4314 of 2015) Vijendra .…Appellant(s) Versus State of Uttar Pradesh…
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142 – Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-servicemen) Rules, 1988 – Rule 6B – A candidate who is not eligible on the last date of submission of application cannot be treated to be eligible in the category of Ex-servicemen when the writ petitioners were in active service on the last date of submission of application forms
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, AJMER AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. SHIKUN RAM FIRUDA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and…
Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory In All Corruption Cases: SC
Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory In All Corruption Cases: SC [Read Judgment] BY: ASHOK KINI6 Dec 2019 6:04 PM “The judgment of this court in Lalita Kumari does not state that…
We clarify that the petitioners are liable to pay a sum of Rs. 3,12,000/- as ordered by the High Court only.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CENTRAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LAXMIKANTA PATI — Respondent ( Before : Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ.…
Reasonable Possibility Of Acquittal: SC Grants Bail to NDPS Accused
Reasonable Possibility Of Acquittal: SC Grants Bail to NDPS Accused [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 29 Jan 2020 2:23 PM The Supreme Court has granted bail to an accused charged…
Electricity Supply Cannot Be Disconnected For Recovery Of Additional Demand Raised After Expiry Of Two Years Limitation Period HELD Section 56(2) however, does not preclude the licensee company from raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period of two years. It only restricts the right of the licensee to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues after the period of limitation of two years has expired
Electricity Supply Cannot Be Disconnected For Recovery Of Additional Demand Raised After Expiry Of Two Years Limitation Period: SC [Read Judgment] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 19 Feb 2020 2:31 PM The…
Matrimonial Dispute – Petitioner has stated in her application that she is left homeless – Court are not entering into the merits of the rival contentions between the parties which will be heard at a future date – By way of an ad-hoc arrangement, This Court direct the respondent to pay a lump sum amount of Rs 4 lakhs to the petitioner on or before 31 March 2020.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR — Appellant Vs. MANMOHAN ATTAVAR (D) THR LRS. — Respondent ( Before : D.Y. Chandrachud and Surya Kant, JJ. ) I.A.…







