Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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