Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Quashing of a complaint is a serious matter. Complaint cannot be quashed for the asking. For quashing of a complaint, it must be shown that no offence is made out at all against the Director or Partner.”
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Nazeer and JK Maheshwari*, JJ has called upon a larger bench to decide if on similar
Supreme Court: In a case where an offender under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was denied the
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petitions, the question that came up before that Court
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary, JJ. dismissed a petition which was filed praying
Supreme Court: Explaining the law on vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the bench of Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna*,
Madras High Court: Teekaa Raman, J., observed that there is no mandatory provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act that both the signature
Orissa High Court: R K Pattnaik, J. dismissed the petition and held that the ground on which the petition is raised is
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Atul Sreedharan, J. allowed a petition which was filed for quashing of Crime which was registered for an
Karnataka High Court: M. Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order regarding attachment of property and auction notification. The
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of the term ‘debt or any other liability’ under Section 138 of the NI Act, the bench
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjeev Kumar, J., held that the sentence of fine under Section 138 of N.I.Act must
Kerala High Court: Gopinath P., J., held that adding or omitting prefix like M/s, Mr And Mrs. while drawing the cheque is
The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint.
Allahabad High Court: Vivek Varma, J., refused to quash a complaint case filed under Section 138 NI Act and directed the trial
“A Section 138 proceeding can be said to be a “civil sheep” in a “criminal wolf’s” clothing, as it is the interest of the victim that is sought to be protected, the larger interest of the State being subsumed in the victim alone moving a court in cheque bouncing cases.”
Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., upheld the judgement of High Court of
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., addressed a matter wherein it was reiterated that the initial burden of proving the burden of
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Gurvinder Singh Gill, J., observed that, Right to appeal against conviction is an invaluable statutory right vested upon
And, that’s a wrap! Here’s the list of our coverage on Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 2020. [Allahabad High Court] All