Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

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