Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Allahabad High Court Quashes Summoning Order in Rs. 10 Crore Cheque Dishonor Case, Observes ‘Prima Facie Signatures Differ – Remands Matter for Fresh Adjudication”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Shamim Ahmed, has quashed the summoning order in the Rs. 10 Crore cheque dishonor case involving Mehrab Logistics And Aviation Ltd. The Court observed discrepancies in signatures on the cheques and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the need for strict interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

The primary legal point in this judgement revolves around the application of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which deals with the dishonor of cheques due to insufficiency of funds or the amount exceeding the arrangement with the bank. The case also highlighted the distinction between civil wrongs and criminal offences in the context of cheque dishonor.

Mehrab Logistics and its Managing Director were accused of issuing two dishonored cheques worth Rs. 5 Crores each, under allegations of fraudulent dealings in a hotel sale transaction. The complainant alleged that the cheques were issued as a fee for services rendered in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). The applicants contended that the cheques were stolen and presented with forged signatures.

The Court thoroughly assessed the discrepancies in cheque transactions, including the allegations of lost cheques and forged signatures. Justice Ahmed observed significant differences in signatures on the cheques and the sale deed. A forensic report supported the applicants’ claim of signature mismatch.

The Court emphasized the necessity of a legally enforceable debt or liability for an offense under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. It was observed that the present case predominantly constituted a civil wrong, lacking ingredients for a criminal offense under the Act. The Court also noted the trial court’s failure to properly assess evidence while issuing the summoning order.

The High Court set aside the summoning order and entire proceeding, directing the trial court to pass a fresh order within four months, considering the Supreme Court’s judgments and observations made.

Date of Decision: 13.02.2024

Mehrab Logistics And Aviation Ltd. vs State Of U.P.

Latest Legal News