Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad 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"]

Similar News