Petitioner filed instant petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C challenging four complaints filed by respondent against him alleging commission of offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. These four complaints pertain to four different cheques.
rbitral award was set aside partially by the Hon’ble High court on the basis that the arbitrator has clearly exceeded his jurisdiction and has awarded most of the items of claims by either ignoring the terms and conditions of the contract or acting in derogation therefrom.
Lupin Ltd Vs Union of India (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) Initially, the petitioner was declared to be eligible for exemption/budgetary support till 05.02.2023 but after the subsequent investigation, in view of the order dated 26.07.2021, the petitioner’s unit was found eligible for such benefit only upto 06.11.2017. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for […]
Held that provisions contained in Section 138 of the NI Act is to be interpreted in a liberal manner so as to achieve the object for which the said provision has been enacted. Thus, dishonor of cheque due to difference in signatures is also covered under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Held that absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of driver to drive, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either insured/ third parties, to avoid liability towards insured. Insurer has to prove that insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care.
Engineering Control Vs Banday Infratech Pvt. Ltd (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) The only ground urged by the petitioner for challenging the impugned complaint and the order of taking cognizance is that statutory notice of demand has not been served upon him, inasmuch as the address on which the respondent has dispatched the said notice […]
Held that offences under Section 138 of the NI Act and Section 420 of IPC are distinct from each other because ingredients of the two offences are different. Person can be prosecuted under both the said sections.
Jammu & Kashmir HC clarifies non-filing of Section 8 application doesn’t waive arbitration rights. Anita Mehta seeks arbitrator appointment.
Commissioner of CGST Vs Narbada Industries (Jammu & Kashmir High Court) That no refund can be ordered against a party, if that party has not been unjustly enriched or when it has acquired the benefit lawfully. Since the assessee have got the benefit of refund lawfully under the prevailing law, they cannot be directed to […]
Parvaiz Ahmad Bhat Vs Fida Mohamamd Ayoub (Jammu and Kashmir High Court) The question whether stop payment instructions, which result in dishonor of a cheque, would amount to an offence under Section 138 of the NIA Act, was considered by the Supreme Court in M. M. T. C. Ltd. Vs. M/S Medchl Chemicals, (2001) 1 […]
