Corporate Law : The court held that cheque dishonour caused by a statutory account freeze during insolvency does not attract criminal liability. T...
Corporate Law : upreme Court held that a trust is not a separate legal entity under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and only its trustees can be held...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court of India ruled that presenting a cheque for its full amount after a partial payment was made does not constitute...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court in Vishnoo Mittal v. M/s Shakti Trading Company quashed proceedings against a director under Section 138 of the ...
Corporate Law : SC rules that directors cannot face Section 138 NI Act cases if the cause of action arises after insolvency proceedings begin unde...
Corporate Law : The Modi government in a bit to improve ease of doing business and unclogging courts has decided that 39 sections in 19 differen...
Corporate Law : Lok Sabha passes Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Bill, 2018 a bill further to amend the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by whic...
Corporate Law : It is, therefore, proposed to introduce the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2017 to provide, inter alia, for the followin...
Corporate Law : Proposal to promulgate the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shr...
Corporate Law : The main amendment included in this is the stipulation that the offence of rejection/return of cheque u/s 138 of NI Act will be en...
Corporate Law : Tripura High Court acquitted the accused after finding the complainant failed to prove financial capacity and valid statutory noti...
Corporate Law : High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that contradictory defence evidence failed to rebut statutory presu...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court examined whether personal insolvency proceedings under the IBC could halt cheque dishonour cases under Section 1...
Finance : The Supreme Court ruled that vicarious liability under the NI Act cannot arise solely from holding an office in a society or compa...
Corporate Law : The Karnataka High Court held that a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can pursue an appeal as a vic...
Corporate Law : Pursuant to directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, following Practice Directions are issued to all Courts dealing with case...
Finance : Central Government hereby declares every Saturday as a public holiday for Life Insurance Corporation of India, with immediate effe...
Corporate Law : This Act may be called the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central ...
Corporate Law : MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) New Delhi, the 29th December, 2015 The following Act of Parliament received t...
Corporate Law : NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 123 of the Constitution, the President is pleased to p...
Sarojben Ashwinkumar Shah etc. Vs. State of Gujarat & ANR. (Supreme Court of India)- In this case, a firm issued cheques to a person but it was returned by the bank as the account had been closed. The payee filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the firm and two partners. During the trial, the two partners produced the copy of the registration of the firm. It indicated that there were two more partners in the firm. So the payee wanted to make them also parties. The newcomers moved the Gujarat high court for quashing this move. The high court refused to do so. They appealed to the Supreme Court. It set aside the high court order and asked it to reconsider the case.
Expressing concern over rising cheque bouncing cases, a Delhi court has sentenced a businessman to six months in jail and imposed a fine of Rs 3 lakh on him, saying no leniency is called for in such cases. Metropolitan Magistrate Vishal Pahuja jailed Delhi-based cloth merchant Ravinder Kumar, rejecting his plea for release on probation after payment of fine, saying that cheque bouncing cases consume a lot of time of the court.
Joseph Vilangadan. v. Phenomenal Health Care Services Ltd. & Anr. – As per the said contract, Contractors deposited the sum of Rs. 10 lacs by undated cheque no.027840 drawn against South Indian Bank Ltd., Palarivattom Branch, Cochin branch with the respondent no.1 as refundable security deposit for the due performance of the agreement. The said undated cheque was in custody of the respondent 2 no.1 and it appears that the respondent no.1 filled in the date on undated cheque as 4.6.2008. The cheque was presented to the drawee bank through the banker of the respondent no.1. Cheque was returned unpaid on the ground that the drawer had stopped the payment. Therefore, notice was issued by the respondent to the contractor as well as its managing partner for the payment of the cheque amount. In spite of notice, payment was not made.
Rallis India Ltd. Vs. Poduru Vidya Bhusan & Ors. (Supreme Court) – When partners of a firm issue cheques which are dishonoured, it is presumed that they were responsible for issuing them unless they prove that they were not in charge of the daily affairs of the firm. They have to discharge the burden during the trial under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court stated in the case, Rallis India Ltd vs Poduru Vidya. In this case, the company filed criminal complaints against three partners. They denied responsibility arguing that they had resigned before the date of the cheques. The Andhra Pradesh accepted their plea and quashed the criminal cases against them. Rallis appealed to the Supreme Court. It set aside the high court judgement and stated that the partners’ denial of responsibility and their status at the time of the issuance of cheques must be tested during the trial. The complaint against them could not be quashed by the high court using its discretionary power.
In the present case, the trial court had acquitted the appellant-accused in a case related to the dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. This finding of acquittal had been made by the Addl. JMFC at Ranebennur, Karnataka in Criminal Case No. 993/2001, by way of a judgment dated 30-5-2005. On appeal by the respondent-complainant, the High Court had reversed the trial court’s decision and recorded a finding of conviction
Mumbai- Till fairly recently, parties held guilty in consumer forums delayed shelling out compensation by paying only a part or by seeking adjournments. Not anymore. The state consumer commission has, among other measures, precluded payment of compen
Please refer to our circular RPCD.CO.RRB.BC.No.19/03.05.33/2009-10 dated September 11, 2010 on the captioned subject, in which it has been stated that the practice of collection of cheques crossed ‘account payee’ through third party accounts (of co-operative credit societies) is not permissible. However, to facilitate collection of cheques from a payment system angle, it has been clarified therein that sub-members of the clearing houses may collect the cheques of their customers for the credit to their accounts through the sponsor member, under certain circumstances referred to therein.
We need not go into the background concerning the usage of cheque and it is a reality now that the payments through cheque have become an indispensable part of the mercantile community and even the public in general. In fact, payments through cheque is encouraged and made mandatory in view of certain regulations and as a best accounting practice.
The Law Commission in its report had recommended that pendency of large number of cases relating to cheque bouncing tarnish the image of business. Cases relating to dishonoured cheques affect business within and outside the country. It said cheque bouncing cases need to be speedily disposed of through this measure, lest litigants may lose faith in the judicial system. Speedy disposal of such cases would instil confidence.
Section 291 of the Companies Act provides that subject to the provisions of that Act, the Board of Directors of a company shall be entitled to exercise all such powers, and to do all such acts and things, as the company is authorized to exercise and do. A company, though a legal entity, can act only through its Board of Directors. The settled position is that a Managing Director is prima facie in-charge of and responsible for the company’s business and affairs and can be prosecuted
