Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

"Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Landmark Cheque Dishonor Case: Burden of Proof Sustained Despite New Contention"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Dishonor of Cheque - Presumption of consideration - Burden of proof - Admitted signature - The appellant filed a complaint against the respondent for dishonoring a cheque issued for partial repayment of an advance amount paid towards the purchase of a property - The Trial Court convicted the respondent, and the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge - The respondent raised a new contention before the High Court regarding the circumstances under which he signed the cheque - High Court allowed the Revision Petition, setting aside the conviction order, holding that the appellant had not proved payment of the advance amount, and the agreement for the property transaction was doubtful - On appeal, the Supreme Court reinstated the Trial Court's conviction order, emphasizing that the respondent did not successfully rebut the presumption of consideration arising from the admitted signature on the cheque - The Court considered the respondent's new contention but found it unsubstantiated, as it was raised for the first time during the arguments before the High Court and lacked supporting evidence - The Court modified the sentence to impose an enhanced fine instead of imprisonment, considering the age of the case, the non-commercial nature of the transaction, and the possibility of social and economic changes in the parties' status over time - The respondent was given the option to pay the fine, and in case of default, he would serve a six-month imprisonment.

D.D- September 23, 2021

Triyambak S. Hegde vs Sripad 

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/2-1.pdf"]

Latest Legal News