Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Delhi High Court Refuses To Quash Cheque Bounce Case – Issues Could Not Be Decided Without Proper Evidence And Trial

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Delhi High Court has refused to quash a cheque bounce case against Shalini Securities Private Limited and Amandeep Singh. The case, which dates back to a financial dispute between Lokesh Thakkar and Amandeep Singh, has seen multiple legal arguments put forth by the defendants.

The court observed that Lokesh Thakkar had invested in a project of Amandeep Singh, who had assured him of significant profits. Lokesh Thakkar alleged that he had paid Rs. 10 crores 40 lakhs to Amandeep Singh through various means, but a dispute arose when he sought to recover his investment and profits. Amandeep Singh, in his capacity as Director of Shalini Securities Private Limited, issued 11 post-dated cheques, each amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs, to Lokesh Thakkar.

However, the cheques were dishonored by the bank due to insufficient funds. A legal notice was sent, but the payment was not made, leading to the filing of a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

M/s Shalini Securities Private Limited and Amandeep Singh contended that Amandeep Singh had resigned as Director of the company in 2012 and was not authorized to issue the cheques in question. They argued that there was no legally enforceable debt due to Lokesh Thakkar.

The court, while refusing to quash the case, noted that these issues could not be decided without proper evidence and trial. It emphasized that Lokesh Thakkar appeared to be the holder of the cheques and was entitled to the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court stated, "The issues raised in the present complaint require evidence and cannot be decided in the present petitions."

Date of Decision: 14 Sep 2023 

SHALINI SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED  VS LOKESH THAKKAR & ANR   

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/shalini-securities-private-limited-14Sep23-DelHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News