“The oral and the documentary evidence adduced by the complainant are sufficient to prove that it was a legally enforceable debt and that the cheques were issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt. With the evidence adduced by the complainant, the courts below ought to have raised the presumption under Section 139 of the Act
The Supreme Court on Wednesday made pertinent observations regarding the burden of proof that falls upon opposing parties in a cheque bouncing dispute under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. A Bench…
Motor Accident claims: Multiplier should be computed based on age of deceased bachelor, since the deceased was 20 years old, a Multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma.
Motor Accident claims: Multiplier should be computed based on age of deceased bachelor, since the deceased was 20 years old, a Multiplier of 18 ought to have been applied as per the decision…
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – It is settled legal position that the effect of Section 52 is not to render transfers effected during the pendency of a suit by a party to the suit void; but only to render such transfers subservient to the rights of the parties to such suit, as may be, eventually, determined in the suit.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MADHUKAR NIVRUTTI JAGTAP AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SMT. PRAMILABAI CHANDULAL PARANDEKAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh…
Amendment of Pleadings—It is not permissible to allow withdrawal of stand taken earlier in the plaint and it is also not permissible to change nature of suit by an application under 0.6 R.17CPC
2019(2) Law Herald (P&H) 942 (SC) : 2019 LawHerald.Org 706 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Civil Appeal…
Cheating—Non repayment of loan—Mere inability of the borrower to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution under S.406 & S.420 IPC
2019(2) Law Herald (P&H) 938 (SC) : 2019 LawHerald.Org 619 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice N. V. Ramana Hon’ble Mr Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar Criminal…
Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.365 and S.394–Bail–Kidnapping-Appellant is in custody from about last 4 months—Further custody of the accused will come in the way of conduct of trial that will have to be held against him-Appellant ought to be released on bail-Bail granted-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439
2019(2) Law Herald (P&H) 937 (SC) : 2019 LawHerald.Org 617 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr, Justice L. Nageswara Rao Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna Criminal Appeal…
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 612 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud Criminal Appeal No. 1465 of 2009…
Appeal—Dismissal in Default–Against an order of refusal readmitting the appeal which was dismissed in default appeal lies under 0.43 R.l(t) 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 Appeal…
The order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court, directing the State to appoint the applicants as Gardeners is beyond their jurisdiction vested in the High Court as there cannot be any direction for making appointment to the public post in such a manner. Consequently, the appeals are allowed.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, ODISHA — Appellant Vs. PRAVAT KUMAR DASH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta,…
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 2(2), 11, 96, Order 41 Rule 22 and Order 41 Rule 33 – Res judicata-Decree is of dismissal of the suit, whereas, the reasons for passing such decree is judgment as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code. In terms of Section 11 read with Explanation I, the issue in a former suit will operate as res judicata only if such issue is raised in a subsequent suit. Since, the issue of title has not attained finality, therefore, it is not a former suit to which there can be any application of Section 11
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. B. RANGA REDDY (D) BY LRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara…