Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Dishonor Case: Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, that a cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or liability, can be rebutted solely based on a fiduciary relationship between the payee and the drawer […]
Supreme Court Reverses Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case: Anss Rajashekar vs. Augustus Jeba Ananth (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, that a cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, was rebutted by the accused. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal (Cheque Bounce) Case Name: Anss Rajashekar vs.
Supreme Court quashes cheque bounce case against director for lack of company as accused: Himanshu vs. B. Shivamurthy (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a director of a company can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, if the company is not named as an accused. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Cheque Dishonour) Case Name:
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Dishonor Case: T.P. Murugan vs. Bojan (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a cheque issued is presumed to be for a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the conditions for rebutting such presumption. CASE TYPE: Criminal – Negotiable Instruments Act Case Name: T.P. Murugan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. vs. Bojan & Posa
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Cheque Dishonor Case: T.P. Murugan vs. Bojan (2018) Read Post »
Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 138 of NI Act: Kishan Rao vs. Shankargouda (2018) Date of the Judgment: 2 July 2018 Citation: 2018 INSC 603 Judges: A.K. Sikri, J., Ashok Bhushan, J. Can a High Court overturn a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, simply by re-evaluating the evidence? The
Supreme Court Grants Bail: Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether bail should be granted when the accused was not arrested during investigation and there is no apprehension of absconding. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. Judgment Date: 6 February 2018 Introduction Date
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an advocate can claim fees based on a percentage of the decretal amount and whether a cheque issued for such fees constitutes a legally enforceable debt.CASE TYPE: Professional Ethics, Negotiable Instruments Act Case Name: B. Sunitha vs. The State of Telangana & Anr. [Judgment Date]: 5th December, 2017 Can a lawyer demand
Can a criminal case for cheating be quashed when the parties have settled a dispute arising from a cheque bounce? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the parties had reached an amicable settlement. This case involved a dispute initially related to a cheque dishonor, which then led to
LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be set aside if the parties have settled the dispute. CASE TYPE: Criminal Case Name: Smt. P. Chandrakala vs. K. Narender & Anr. Judgment Date: 24 July 2017 Date of the Judgment: 24 July 2017 Citation: 2017 INSC 661 Judges:
Can proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act be closed if the accused is willing to pay the cheque amount? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning cheque dishonor. The court clarified the procedure, emphasizing the compensatory nature of the law and the possibility of closing proceedings
Date of the Judgment: 5 July 2013 Citation: (2013) INSC 488 Judges: T.S. Thakur, J., Gyan Sudha Misra, J. Can sentences for multiple cheque dishonor cases run concurrently? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment. The court considered whether sentences awarded to the appellant in cases under Section 138 of
Date of the Judgment: July 1, 2013 Citation: (2013) INSC 485 Judges: P. Sathasivam, J., Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. Can a person be held liable for a cheque bounce if they did not sign the cheque, even if it’s from a joint account? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a case
