The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption; Section 139 is an example of a reverse onus and the test of proportionality should guide the construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses on the defendant-accused and the defendant-accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof; the standard of proof for […]Read more "Rebuttable Presumption"
Appellant-Director [Himanshu] cannot not be ‘prosecuted’ for a ‘Company-Issued, Director-Signed Cheque Bounce’ without Company [M/s. Lakshmi Cement and Industries Ltd.] being ‘named/arraigned’ as an Accused. Three-Judge Bench in Aneeta Hada, (2012) 5 SCC 661 governs the area of dispute. Three-Judge Bench has since been followed by a Two-Judge Bench in Charanjit Pal Jindal vs. L.N. […]Read more "Notice to Directors II"
“The correctness of the decision in Sadanandan’s case was doubted. Three-Judge Bench of this Court in MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan held that there is nothing in the provisions of Section 138 of The Act that forbids the holder of the cheque to make successive presentation of the cheque and institute the criminal complaint based […]Read more "Successive Presentations of Cheque"
An Advocate represented its Client before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and charged a fee of Rs. 10,00,000 [Rupees Ten Lakhs]. The Tribunal awarded compensation. The Client was compelled to sign a further cheque, in favour of the Advocate, towards payment of a certain percentage of the decretal amount. That cheque stood dishonoured and the […]Read more "A Legally Enforceable Debt III"
Recently in M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta, [Criminal Appeal No. 1731 of 2017] Goel and Lalit JJ observed: “There appears to be need to consider categories of cases which can be partly or entirely concluded ‘online’ without physical presence of the parties by simplifying procedures where seriously disputed questions are not required […]Read more "Video Conferencing in Matrimonial (Cheque) Disputes II (I)"
To commit an offence, within the meaning of Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“Act”) there must be a legally enforceable debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque. This is important to point out for sometimes cheques are post-dated. Notably, in Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. v. Magnum Aviation […]Read more "A Legally Enforceable Debt II"
It is widely known that Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 9 SCC 129 gave rise to further ‘territorial jurisdiction conundrum’. In Bridgestone India, 2015 (13) SCALE 155 decided on 24.11.2015, “in order to overcome the legal position declared by the Court in Dashrath,” attention was drawn to The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second […]Read more "Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Second Ordinance, 2015"