Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws 2021 2021 2021 (7) Indian Laws - 2021 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Indian Laws - Case Laws

Showing 61 to 63 of 63 Records

• 2021 (7) TMI 123
  

  Dishonor of Cheque - illegality in the order of issuance of process or not - the contention in the memo of revision is that the learned Magistrate committed a jurisdictional error in taking cognizance of the offence - HELD THAT:- The cheque is issued by a firm, which is not arraigned as accused. Indeed, since the statutory notice was not served, the firm could not be arraigned as accused. The private limited company, which has no nexus whatsoever with the dishonoured cheques, was arraigned as accused 1. The fact that Ramanarao Bolla is a Director of the private limited company as well as a partner of the firm, is of scant significance considering that the company is a distinct legal entity and the mere fact that one of the Director is also a partner of a firm which issued the dishonoured cheque cannot be the basis of the implication of the company in the alleged offence.

  The petition is dismissed.

  ---

• 2021 (7) TMI 117
  

  Dishonor of Cheque - insufficiency of funds - Amicable settlement - Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT:- The prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is against persons who have issued the cheque, which is later dishonored. Mere assurance of payment or selection of jewellery cannot be the basis to rope in the petitioners. It is vaguely stated in the complaint that the petitioners are directors and responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the A1 company. But in the given facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the uncontroverted claim of the petitioners that they are household ladies, this Court is of the opinion that vague and omnibus against the petitioners/directors as being responsible for the day-to-day affairs of A1 company is not sufficient. Mere verbatim reproduction of the words contained in Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without any specific role attributed to each of the petitioners in the A1 company, cannot be the basis to prosecute the petitioners, as the same would unjust and result in abuse of process of law.

  In POOJA RAVINDER DEVIDASANI's case [2014 (12) TMI 1070 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court allowed the quash petition not only on the ground that there is no specific role attributed to the appellant but also on the ground that the appellant has resigned as Director much prior to issuance of the cheque.

  The criminal petition is allowed.

  ---

• 2021 (7) TMI 115
  

  Dishonor of Cheque - prosecution against the person who signed the cheque or the person who has authorized the signatory - - Insufficiency of funds - criminal proceedings initiated against these petitioners No. 1 and 2 or not - HELD THAT:- The complaint filed by the complainant before the trial Court makes it clear that it was the accused No. 1 who issued the Cheque in question towards legally recoverable debt due by accused Nos. 1 and 2. Similar contention is taken in the legal notice that was issued immediately after dishonor of the Cheque. Complainant in his sworn statement before the trial Court stated similar facts that it was accused No. 1 only who signed the Cheque. Of course, it is stated that accused No. 1 was authorized to maintain and sign the joint account on which the Cheque in question was drawn. Therefore, it is clear that even though the Cheque in question pertains to a joint account of accused Nos. 1 and 2 it was signed only by accused No. 1 and not by accused No. 2.

  The law on the point is made very clear. When accused No. 1 alone signed the Cheque in question, even though it is stated that accused No. 2 had authorized accused No. 1 to sign the Cheque, will not make her liable for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It is only accused No. 1 who signed the Cheque and issued in favour of the complainant and therefore, he can be prosecuted before the trial Court.

  Petition allowed in part.

  ---

1234