Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The complainant woefully failed to account for the amount of Rs 6,11,071/- which was due on him towards the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount represented on the cheque in question was a legally recoverable debt.
Supreme Court: In the case where the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the offence under Section 138 of the
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi: Deeksha Sethi, MM (NI Act)—06, reiterated that, even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi: Shreya Arora Mehta, Metropolitan Magistrate, while addressing a matter with regard to Section 138 of the Negotiable
Rohini Court, North-West, Delhi: Ritika Kansal, MM(NI) reiterated the settled position of law that, “…an accused has to prove his defence by
Karnataka High Court: Rajendra Badamikar, J., reversed an order of the Magistrate which had directed the petitioner accused to deposit 20% of the
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., addressed a matter wherein it was reiterated that the initial burden of proving the burden of
Tripura High Court: S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., highlights the essence of the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, in light of the object of a
Bombay High Court: C.V. Bhadang, J., set aside an order passed by the Magistrate whereby process was issued against the petitioner for an offence
Madras High Court: The Bench of P. Velmurugan J. convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for dishonour