NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

High Court Acquits Director in Cheque Dishonor Case: Emphasizes Mandatory Inclusion of Company as Accused for Case Maintainability

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court at Calcutta has set a precedent in cases of cheque dishonor under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Hon’ble Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) acquitted Ravi Modi, director of Bhavyaa Global Limited, in a cheque dishonor case, emphasizing the legal necessity of including the company as an accused for the maintainability of such cases.

The case, titled Ravi Modi Vs Shashi Kant Bubna & Anr., revolved around the dishonor of a cheque issued by Mr. Modi, the director of Bhavyaa Global Limited. The High Court overturned the previous convictions by the Metropolitan Magistrate and the Additional District & Sessions Judge, which had sentenced Mr. Modi to imprisonment and imposed a compensation of Rs. 17,00,000.

In her judgment dated December 1, 2023, Justice Dutt (Paul) stated, “in the absence of the company being arraigned as an accused, a complaint against the petitioner is not maintainable.” This statement highlights the court’s adherence to the legal framework under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which requires the company to be included as an accused if the cheque is issued by a company director.

The court relied heavily on precedents set by the Supreme Court in cases such as Aneeta Hada vs Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited and Himanshu -versus- B. Shivamurthy & Another. These cases underscore the imperative to arraign the concerned company in cases of cheque dishonor under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Date of Decision: 1st December 2023

Ravi Modi Vs Shashi Kant Bubna & Anr.

Latest Legal News