Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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