Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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