The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the complainant in a case involving dishonored cheque(s) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The Court held that even if a cheque is dishonored due to "stop payment" instructions, an offense under Section 138 can still be made out. Additionally, the Court found that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act applies even in cases where the cheque is dishonored due to stop payment instructions. Under Section 139, the Court must presume that the cheque was received by the holder to discharge a debt or liability, in whole or in part. Therefore, the Court concluded that dishonor due to stop payment does not prevent criminal liability from arising under Section 138
This document discusses Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, which deals with dishonoring of cheques. It defines key terms related to cheques like bearer cheque, order cheque, etc. It outlines the 5 ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 138, which are drawing of cheque, presentation, returning unpaid, notice demanding payment, and failure to pay within 15 days of notice.
It describes the procedure for filing a complaint under this section, which involves a judicial magistrate conducting a summary trial. Guidelines from previous court cases on the summary trial procedure are also mentioned. The document discusses issues like jurisdiction, settlement during trial, and key cases related to Section 138 offenses. It provides details on the trial process
Critical study of dishonour of cheques under negotiable instruments act,1881merenjithr
The document discusses key provisions and amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 regarding dishonour of cheques, including definitions of offenses, requirements for prosecution, and important case law interpretations from the Supreme Court of India that have clarified ambiguities in the Act. It examines issues such as jurisdiction, successive cheque presentations, legally enforceable debts, notice requirements, and the liability of company directors. The overall objective of the Act and amendments is to encourage the use of cheques and enhance their credibility by penalizing dishonored cheques.
Critical study of dishonour of cheques under negotiable instruments act,1881merenjithr
The document discusses key provisions and amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 relating to dishonour of cheques, including definitions of offenses, requirements for initiating prosecution, and important judgements from the Supreme Court of India that have clarified ambiguities in the law. It examines topics such as post-dated cheques, jurisdiction, successive cheque presentations, legally enforceable debts, notice requirements, and the liability of company directors. The conclusion notes that while the law aims for expedited trials, cases in lower courts often move slowly.
Section 138 of the negotiable instruments actAltacit Global
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act defines the dishonor of a cheque as a criminal offense. The 1988 amendment to this section clarified that dishonor for any reason, including insufficient funds, constitutes a criminal offense. The purpose of this amendment was to encourage the use of cheques and protect honest individuals dealing with cheques. Dishonor of a cheque is considered a criminal offense with punishment of up to 2 years imprisonment, a fine of twice the cheque amount, or both.
This document provides an overview of negotiable instruments law in India. It defines key terms like negotiable instruments, holder in due course, and ambiguous and inchoate instruments. It describes the essential features of negotiability. It also discusses the main types of negotiable instruments - promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques. It provides examples and definitions of these instruments and identifies the typical parties involved, like maker, payee, drawee, etc. Finally, it outlines some of the legal requirements and characteristics of valid cheques under Indian law.
The document provides details from the weekly progress report of an internship at Amity University in Uttar Pradesh from May 28th to June 1st.
Over the course of the week, the intern researched the Negotiable Instruments Act and wrote about bills of exchange and cheques. They learned about parties to negotiable instruments, endorsement, dishonor of cheques, and the Trade Unions Act of 1926. The intern observed court cases, assisted their guide with case files, and researched assigned legal topics including the definition and registration of trade unions.
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...Law Web
Whether it is necessary to make enquiry U/S 202 of crpc in case of dishonour of cheque? http://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/whether-it-is-necessary-to-make-enquiry.html?
The document discusses the recording of statements by Income Tax authorities in India. It outlines that the Income Tax Officer and those of higher rank are authorized to administer oaths and record statements. Inspectors are not authorized to record statements alone. Statements must be recorded in a language the deponent understands and should be read back and confirmed. Uncoerced statements recorded under oath, especially those under section 132(4), can be used as evidence against the deponent. However, statements taken without proper procedure or under threat may have no evidentiary value.
This document discusses Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, which deals with dishonoring of cheques. It defines key terms related to cheques like bearer cheque, order cheque, etc. It outlines the 5 ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 138, which are drawing of cheque, presentation, returning unpaid, notice demanding payment, and failure to pay within 15 days of notice.
It describes the procedure for filing a complaint under this section, which involves a judicial magistrate conducting a summary trial. Guidelines from previous court cases on the summary trial procedure are also mentioned. The document discusses issues like jurisdiction, settlement during trial, and key cases related to Section 138 offenses. It provides details on the trial process
Critical study of dishonour of cheques under negotiable instruments act,1881merenjithr
The document discusses key provisions and amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 regarding dishonour of cheques, including definitions of offenses, requirements for prosecution, and important case law interpretations from the Supreme Court of India that have clarified ambiguities in the Act. It examines issues such as jurisdiction, successive cheque presentations, legally enforceable debts, notice requirements, and the liability of company directors. The overall objective of the Act and amendments is to encourage the use of cheques and enhance their credibility by penalizing dishonored cheques.
Critical study of dishonour of cheques under negotiable instruments act,1881merenjithr
The document discusses key provisions and amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 relating to dishonour of cheques, including definitions of offenses, requirements for initiating prosecution, and important judgements from the Supreme Court of India that have clarified ambiguities in the law. It examines topics such as post-dated cheques, jurisdiction, successive cheque presentations, legally enforceable debts, notice requirements, and the liability of company directors. The conclusion notes that while the law aims for expedited trials, cases in lower courts often move slowly.
Section 138 of the negotiable instruments actAltacit Global
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act defines the dishonor of a cheque as a criminal offense. The 1988 amendment to this section clarified that dishonor for any reason, including insufficient funds, constitutes a criminal offense. The purpose of this amendment was to encourage the use of cheques and protect honest individuals dealing with cheques. Dishonor of a cheque is considered a criminal offense with punishment of up to 2 years imprisonment, a fine of twice the cheque amount, or both.
This document provides an overview of negotiable instruments law in India. It defines key terms like negotiable instruments, holder in due course, and ambiguous and inchoate instruments. It describes the essential features of negotiability. It also discusses the main types of negotiable instruments - promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques. It provides examples and definitions of these instruments and identifies the typical parties involved, like maker, payee, drawee, etc. Finally, it outlines some of the legal requirements and characteristics of valid cheques under Indian law.
The document provides details from the weekly progress report of an internship at Amity University in Uttar Pradesh from May 28th to June 1st.
Over the course of the week, the intern researched the Negotiable Instruments Act and wrote about bills of exchange and cheques. They learned about parties to negotiable instruments, endorsement, dishonor of cheques, and the Trade Unions Act of 1926. The intern observed court cases, assisted their guide with case files, and researched assigned legal topics including the definition and registration of trade unions.
Lawweb.in whether it is necessary to make enquiry us 202 of crpc in case of d...Law Web
Whether it is necessary to make enquiry U/S 202 of crpc in case of dishonour of cheque? http://www.lawweb.in/2016/04/whether-it-is-necessary-to-make-enquiry.html?
The document discusses the recording of statements by Income Tax authorities in India. It outlines that the Income Tax Officer and those of higher rank are authorized to administer oaths and record statements. Inspectors are not authorized to record statements alone. Statements must be recorded in a language the deponent understands and should be read back and confirmed. Uncoerced statements recorded under oath, especially those under section 132(4), can be used as evidence against the deponent. However, statements taken without proper procedure or under threat may have no evidentiary value.
This presentation talks about the various aspects of Dishonour of cheque under Negotiable Instrumenmts Act 1881.
The presentation has been prepared as a project work and from basic research and understanding of law.
It must not be taken as any guidance, advise or any advertising on any part.
This document discusses negotiable instruments under Indian law. It begins with an introduction to the Negotiable Instruments Act enacted in 1881 in India, which was based on English common law relating to promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques. It then defines negotiable instruments and their key characteristics, such as being in writing, unconditional promises to pay certain amounts, and being freely transferable. The document discusses the essential elements and parties involved in promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques. It also distinguishes between these different types of negotiable instruments and discusses dishonoring of cheques and the legal procedures and recent judgments related to dishonored cheques.
The document provides an overview of the Indian legal system for entrepreneurs, covering topics such as the types of presumptions in law, evidence in legal cases, arbitration and conciliation processes, injunctions, contracts, property law concepts, criminal law procedures, and registration requirements. It defines key legal terms and concepts and compares different legal classifications and processes.
This document discusses negotiable instruments, dishonour of negotiable instruments, and discharge of negotiable instruments and parties. It defines a negotiable instrument and outlines ways an instrument can be dishonored, including non-acceptance and non-payment. It also discusses the effect of dishonour and how instruments and parties can be discharged, such as through payment, insolvency, or cancellation with intent to release liability. The document provides information on how one or more parties can be discharged from liability on an instrument through various means like cancellation, release, or failure to give notice of dishonour.
This document discusses the concept of a lawsuit and the importance of pleadings in civil litigation. It provides definitions and explanations of key terms like pleading, plaint, and written statement. The main points are:
1) Pleadings are the formal written statements that define the issues in a civil lawsuit. They help narrow the matters in dispute and prevent surprises at trial.
2) The main types of pleadings are the plaint, which is the plaintiff's statement of claims, and the written statement, which is the defendant's reply and defenses.
3) Pleadings must be confined to material facts and prevent irrelevant information. Their purpose is to ascertain the exact matters in disagreement to facilitate appropriate evidence and
The document discusses key concepts related to negotiable instruments under Indian law, including definitions of holder, holder in due course, and payment in due course. It also covers the different types of cheque crossing - general crossing, special crossing, restrictive crossing, and non-negotiable crossing. Students are assigned questions to differentiate between a holder and holder in due course, and between payment and payment in due course. They are instructed to email their responses with identifying details.
The document defines a negotiable instrument and describes its key characteristics. A negotiable instrument is a document that can be transferred from one person to another. Key characteristics include being freely transferable, allowing a holder in due course to take the instrument free from defects, and being transferable until maturity. The document also classifies negotiable instruments, describes types of endorsements, acceptance, dishonor, discharge and more.
The document provides an overview of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 in India. It discusses:
1) The history leading to the development and implementation of the Act in 1881 to standardize rules around negotiable instruments like promissory notes and bills of exchange.
2) Key definitions in the Act including what makes an instrument negotiable based on certain conditions, and definitions of holders in due course.
3) Essential elements for an instrument to be considered negotiable, including being in writing, unconditional promises to pay, and ability to transfer ownership through endorsement and delivery.
These slides contain information regarding the Meaning, Essentials, Parties and Liabilities of the parties to Negotiable Instruments under the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.
1. Uniform Commercial Code › U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002) › PART 3. GENERAL OBLIGATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT › § 2-302. Unconscionable contract or Clause.
§ 2-302. Unconscionable contract or Clause.
(1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contractor any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.
(2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contractor any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-302
Weaver v. American Oil Company
276 N.E.2d 144 (1971)Supreme Court of Indiana.
ARTERBURN, Chief Justice.
In this case the appellee oil company presented to the appellant-defendant leasee, a filling station operator, a printed form contract as a lease to be signed, by the defendant, which contained, in addition to the normal leasing provisions, a "hold harmless" clause which provided in substance that the leasee operator would hold harmless and also indemnify the oil company for any negligence of the oil company occurring on the leased premises. The litigation arises as a result of the oil company's own employee spraying gasoline over Weaver and his assistant and causing them to be burned and injured on the leased premises. This action was initiated by American Oil and Hoffer (Appellees) for a declaratory judgment to determine the liability of appellant Weaver, under the clause in the lease. The trial court entered judgment holding Weaver liable under the lease.
Clause three [3] of the lease reads as follows:
"Lessor, its agents and employees shall not be liable for any loss, damage, injuries, or other casualty of whatsoever kind or by whomsoever caused to the person or property of anyone (including Lessee) on or off the premises, arising out of or resulting from Lessee's use, possession or operation thereof, or from defects in the premises whether apparent or hidden, or from the installation existence, use, maintenance, condition, repair, alteration, removal or replacement of any equipment thereon, whether due in whole or in part to negligent acts or omissions of Lessor, its agents or employees; and Lessee for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Lessor, its agents and employees, harmless from and against all claims, demands, liabilities, suits or actions (including all reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurred by or imposed on the Lessor in connection therewith) for such loss, damage, injury or other casualty. Lessee also agrees to pay all reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incu.
This document defines negotiable instruments and provides details about their key characteristics and types under Indian law. It discusses that a negotiable instrument is a written document that creates a right in favor of someone and can be freely transferred. The three main types of negotiable instruments are promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques. It outlines the essential elements and parties involved in each type of instrument. The document also summarizes the presumptions that apply regarding negotiable instruments like consideration and the rights of a holder in due course.
This document contains summaries of 3 questions from a Business Law paper.
1) It defines a promissory note and bill of exchange, highlighting the essential elements of each. Key differences include promissory notes having two parties while bills of exchange have three, and liability being primary for makers of promissory notes but secondary for makers of bills of exchange.
2) It defines a contract of sale and unpaid seller. An unpaid seller is one who has not received full payment for goods. Rights of an unpaid seller include lien on goods and right of stoppage in transit or resale.
3) It explains free consent in a contract requires lack of coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation.
This case discusses three civil revision cases filed against an order by a subordinate judge regarding three suits filed by Ansarul Haque against Agrani Bank regarding fixed deposit receipts. The key points are:
1) Ansarul Haque argued the suits should be transferred as the receipts were actually checks, making order 37 of the CPC applicable for summary proceedings. However, the court found the receipts were not negotiable instruments like checks but rather fixed deposits.
2) As fixed deposits are not considered negotiable instruments, order 37 did not apply and the subordinate court had proper jurisdiction to hear the suits without transferring them.
3) Therefore, the court dismissed the revision cases, finding the subordinate
This document is a court document summarizing a case between Vinod Pathak and American Express Bank Ltd. Pathak filed a lawsuit seeking declarations, injunctions, and damages after claiming he was forced to resign from his job at the bank. The court notes that as a private employment, public policy principles do not apply. It also notes Pathak's employment contract allowed termination with one month's notice or pay. Therefore, even if wrongful termination was found, Pathak's maximum entitlement would be one month's salary as damages. The court finds Pathak's suit is not maintainable and denies the claims for reinstatement and ongoing salary/benefits.
The document discusses the case Chua Say Eng v Lee Wee Lick Terence [2010] SGHC 333 and the supervisory powers of the court over the statutory adjudication process in Singapore under the SOP Act. It summarizes the key issues in the case which included the validity of the payment claim under the SOPA, whether the payment claim was served in accordance with the SOPA, and whether the payment claim was served out of time. It then analyzes the court's supervisory role over adjudicators and adjudication decisions, noting that the court's role is limited to procedural compliance rather than reviewing the substance of decisions.
The document discusses various aspects of negotiable instruments law in India including:
1) It defines key negotiable instruments like promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques.
2) It explains the requirements for an instrument to be considered negotiable as well as distinguishing features of a holder versus a holder in due course.
3) It covers topics like negotiation, endorsements, crossings, liability of parties, and procedures for dishonour of bills.
A document or a piece of paper that guarantees payment of a certain amount of money to a specified person (payee) either immediately upon demand or at a predetermined period is known as a negotiable instrument. It is a document made up of a contract that ensures unconditional payment of money that can be paid now or later. In other words, any document that grants ownership over a quantum of money as well as can be transferred by delivery is addressed as a negotiable instrument. To govern the use of negotiable instruments in India, the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881 was defined. On March 1, 1881, the Act of 1881, came into force and extends to the whole of India. It is “An Act to define and amend the law relating to Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and Cheques.” The Negotiable Instrument Act consists of a total of 147 Sections that are spread over 17 chapters. As per the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881, no phrase appropriately defines ‘negotiable instrument’ whereas Section 13 of the Act states that “A negotiable instrument means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer.”
Some landmark judgements of supreme court on direct taxesMiraj Mor
The document discusses the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. It provides details on when a Supreme Court judgment constitutes the law of the land and how lower courts must follow Supreme Court precedents. It also discusses the differences between ratio decidendi, obiter dicta, and casual observations in Supreme Court judgments and how they should be treated. Finally, it summarizes several important Supreme Court rulings on various issues under the Income Tax Act.
This document classifies Indian Penal Code offenses according to their classification as cognizable or non-cognizable, bailable or non-bailable, and the court they are triable in. It provides this classification for offenses ranging from section 120B to 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The classification depends on the nature of the individual offense. For example, section 124 is listed as cognizable, non-bailable, and triable in a Court of Session. This document serves as a reference for understanding how different criminal offenses are processed in the Indian legal system based on these classifications.
This document discusses various "as a service" business models including:
1. Legitimate models like artificial intelligence as a service, backend as a service, blockchain as a service, and infrastructure as a service.
2. Criminal models involving exploiting vulnerabilities, hacking, phishing, and ransomware as services.
3. A defunct model of Windows as a service.
More Related Content
Similar to The Presentation for Security Cheques Judgements FOR and AGAINST the Complainant - Aman 16.05.2023.pptx
This presentation talks about the various aspects of Dishonour of cheque under Negotiable Instrumenmts Act 1881.
The presentation has been prepared as a project work and from basic research and understanding of law.
It must not be taken as any guidance, advise or any advertising on any part.
This document discusses negotiable instruments under Indian law. It begins with an introduction to the Negotiable Instruments Act enacted in 1881 in India, which was based on English common law relating to promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques. It then defines negotiable instruments and their key characteristics, such as being in writing, unconditional promises to pay certain amounts, and being freely transferable. The document discusses the essential elements and parties involved in promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques. It also distinguishes between these different types of negotiable instruments and discusses dishonoring of cheques and the legal procedures and recent judgments related to dishonored cheques.
The document provides an overview of the Indian legal system for entrepreneurs, covering topics such as the types of presumptions in law, evidence in legal cases, arbitration and conciliation processes, injunctions, contracts, property law concepts, criminal law procedures, and registration requirements. It defines key legal terms and concepts and compares different legal classifications and processes.
This document discusses negotiable instruments, dishonour of negotiable instruments, and discharge of negotiable instruments and parties. It defines a negotiable instrument and outlines ways an instrument can be dishonored, including non-acceptance and non-payment. It also discusses the effect of dishonour and how instruments and parties can be discharged, such as through payment, insolvency, or cancellation with intent to release liability. The document provides information on how one or more parties can be discharged from liability on an instrument through various means like cancellation, release, or failure to give notice of dishonour.
This document discusses the concept of a lawsuit and the importance of pleadings in civil litigation. It provides definitions and explanations of key terms like pleading, plaint, and written statement. The main points are:
1) Pleadings are the formal written statements that define the issues in a civil lawsuit. They help narrow the matters in dispute and prevent surprises at trial.
2) The main types of pleadings are the plaint, which is the plaintiff's statement of claims, and the written statement, which is the defendant's reply and defenses.
3) Pleadings must be confined to material facts and prevent irrelevant information. Their purpose is to ascertain the exact matters in disagreement to facilitate appropriate evidence and
The document discusses key concepts related to negotiable instruments under Indian law, including definitions of holder, holder in due course, and payment in due course. It also covers the different types of cheque crossing - general crossing, special crossing, restrictive crossing, and non-negotiable crossing. Students are assigned questions to differentiate between a holder and holder in due course, and between payment and payment in due course. They are instructed to email their responses with identifying details.
The document defines a negotiable instrument and describes its key characteristics. A negotiable instrument is a document that can be transferred from one person to another. Key characteristics include being freely transferable, allowing a holder in due course to take the instrument free from defects, and being transferable until maturity. The document also classifies negotiable instruments, describes types of endorsements, acceptance, dishonor, discharge and more.
The document provides an overview of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 in India. It discusses:
1) The history leading to the development and implementation of the Act in 1881 to standardize rules around negotiable instruments like promissory notes and bills of exchange.
2) Key definitions in the Act including what makes an instrument negotiable based on certain conditions, and definitions of holders in due course.
3) Essential elements for an instrument to be considered negotiable, including being in writing, unconditional promises to pay, and ability to transfer ownership through endorsement and delivery.
These slides contain information regarding the Meaning, Essentials, Parties and Liabilities of the parties to Negotiable Instruments under the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881.
1. Uniform Commercial Code › U.C.C. - ARTICLE 2 - SALES (2002) › PART 3. GENERAL OBLIGATION AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACT › § 2-302. Unconscionable contract or Clause.
§ 2-302. Unconscionable contract or Clause.
(1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contractor any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.
(2) When it is claimed or appears to the court that the contractor any clause thereof may be unconscionable the parties shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence as to its commercial setting, purpose and effect to aid the court in making the determination.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-302
Weaver v. American Oil Company
276 N.E.2d 144 (1971)Supreme Court of Indiana.
ARTERBURN, Chief Justice.
In this case the appellee oil company presented to the appellant-defendant leasee, a filling station operator, a printed form contract as a lease to be signed, by the defendant, which contained, in addition to the normal leasing provisions, a "hold harmless" clause which provided in substance that the leasee operator would hold harmless and also indemnify the oil company for any negligence of the oil company occurring on the leased premises. The litigation arises as a result of the oil company's own employee spraying gasoline over Weaver and his assistant and causing them to be burned and injured on the leased premises. This action was initiated by American Oil and Hoffer (Appellees) for a declaratory judgment to determine the liability of appellant Weaver, under the clause in the lease. The trial court entered judgment holding Weaver liable under the lease.
Clause three [3] of the lease reads as follows:
"Lessor, its agents and employees shall not be liable for any loss, damage, injuries, or other casualty of whatsoever kind or by whomsoever caused to the person or property of anyone (including Lessee) on or off the premises, arising out of or resulting from Lessee's use, possession or operation thereof, or from defects in the premises whether apparent or hidden, or from the installation existence, use, maintenance, condition, repair, alteration, removal or replacement of any equipment thereon, whether due in whole or in part to negligent acts or omissions of Lessor, its agents or employees; and Lessee for himself, his heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, hereby agrees to indemnify and hold Lessor, its agents and employees, harmless from and against all claims, demands, liabilities, suits or actions (including all reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incurred by or imposed on the Lessor in connection therewith) for such loss, damage, injury or other casualty. Lessee also agrees to pay all reasonable expenses and attorneys' fees incu.
This document defines negotiable instruments and provides details about their key characteristics and types under Indian law. It discusses that a negotiable instrument is a written document that creates a right in favor of someone and can be freely transferred. The three main types of negotiable instruments are promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques. It outlines the essential elements and parties involved in each type of instrument. The document also summarizes the presumptions that apply regarding negotiable instruments like consideration and the rights of a holder in due course.
This document contains summaries of 3 questions from a Business Law paper.
1) It defines a promissory note and bill of exchange, highlighting the essential elements of each. Key differences include promissory notes having two parties while bills of exchange have three, and liability being primary for makers of promissory notes but secondary for makers of bills of exchange.
2) It defines a contract of sale and unpaid seller. An unpaid seller is one who has not received full payment for goods. Rights of an unpaid seller include lien on goods and right of stoppage in transit or resale.
3) It explains free consent in a contract requires lack of coercion, undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation.
This case discusses three civil revision cases filed against an order by a subordinate judge regarding three suits filed by Ansarul Haque against Agrani Bank regarding fixed deposit receipts. The key points are:
1) Ansarul Haque argued the suits should be transferred as the receipts were actually checks, making order 37 of the CPC applicable for summary proceedings. However, the court found the receipts were not negotiable instruments like checks but rather fixed deposits.
2) As fixed deposits are not considered negotiable instruments, order 37 did not apply and the subordinate court had proper jurisdiction to hear the suits without transferring them.
3) Therefore, the court dismissed the revision cases, finding the subordinate
This document is a court document summarizing a case between Vinod Pathak and American Express Bank Ltd. Pathak filed a lawsuit seeking declarations, injunctions, and damages after claiming he was forced to resign from his job at the bank. The court notes that as a private employment, public policy principles do not apply. It also notes Pathak's employment contract allowed termination with one month's notice or pay. Therefore, even if wrongful termination was found, Pathak's maximum entitlement would be one month's salary as damages. The court finds Pathak's suit is not maintainable and denies the claims for reinstatement and ongoing salary/benefits.
The document discusses the case Chua Say Eng v Lee Wee Lick Terence [2010] SGHC 333 and the supervisory powers of the court over the statutory adjudication process in Singapore under the SOP Act. It summarizes the key issues in the case which included the validity of the payment claim under the SOPA, whether the payment claim was served in accordance with the SOPA, and whether the payment claim was served out of time. It then analyzes the court's supervisory role over adjudicators and adjudication decisions, noting that the court's role is limited to procedural compliance rather than reviewing the substance of decisions.
The document discusses various aspects of negotiable instruments law in India including:
1) It defines key negotiable instruments like promissory notes, bills of exchange, and cheques.
2) It explains the requirements for an instrument to be considered negotiable as well as distinguishing features of a holder versus a holder in due course.
3) It covers topics like negotiation, endorsements, crossings, liability of parties, and procedures for dishonour of bills.
A document or a piece of paper that guarantees payment of a certain amount of money to a specified person (payee) either immediately upon demand or at a predetermined period is known as a negotiable instrument. It is a document made up of a contract that ensures unconditional payment of money that can be paid now or later. In other words, any document that grants ownership over a quantum of money as well as can be transferred by delivery is addressed as a negotiable instrument. To govern the use of negotiable instruments in India, the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881 was defined. On March 1, 1881, the Act of 1881, came into force and extends to the whole of India. It is “An Act to define and amend the law relating to Promissory Notes, Bills of Exchange and Cheques.” The Negotiable Instrument Act consists of a total of 147 Sections that are spread over 17 chapters. As per the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881, no phrase appropriately defines ‘negotiable instrument’ whereas Section 13 of the Act states that “A negotiable instrument means a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either to order or to bearer.”
Some landmark judgements of supreme court on direct taxesMiraj Mor
The document discusses the binding nature of Supreme Court judgments under Article 141 of the Indian Constitution. It provides details on when a Supreme Court judgment constitutes the law of the land and how lower courts must follow Supreme Court precedents. It also discusses the differences between ratio decidendi, obiter dicta, and casual observations in Supreme Court judgments and how they should be treated. Finally, it summarizes several important Supreme Court rulings on various issues under the Income Tax Act.
Similar to The Presentation for Security Cheques Judgements FOR and AGAINST the Complainant - Aman 16.05.2023.pptx (20)
This document classifies Indian Penal Code offenses according to their classification as cognizable or non-cognizable, bailable or non-bailable, and the court they are triable in. It provides this classification for offenses ranging from section 120B to 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The classification depends on the nature of the individual offense. For example, section 124 is listed as cognizable, non-bailable, and triable in a Court of Session. This document serves as a reference for understanding how different criminal offenses are processed in the Indian legal system based on these classifications.
This document discusses various "as a service" business models including:
1. Legitimate models like artificial intelligence as a service, backend as a service, blockchain as a service, and infrastructure as a service.
2. Criminal models involving exploiting vulnerabilities, hacking, phishing, and ransomware as services.
3. A defunct model of Windows as a service.
become a universal PRO: I aman vijay jindal is well set on way to become a man with most professions in the world, done qualitatively with accolades in this universe
Research- Appeals CPC 96 to 104 Title Muskaan vs Kamal sharma DELHI HIGH COUR...amanvijayjindal
This document discusses the differences between filing an appeal under Section 96 versus Section 104 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code. Section 96 allows appeals of final decrees or orders from lower courts to higher courts, while Section 104 allows appeals of interlocutory orders made during the course of a suit in lower courts. The key distinction is that Section 96 appeals deal with final decisions, while Section 104 appeals deal with interim decisions. For the case in question regarding opening of evidence in a partition suit, the input provided is that the appeal should be filed under Section 104, as seeking to open evidence relates to a procedural irregularity during the ongoing case.
Corporate Governance : Scope and Legal Frameworkdevaki57
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
MEANING
Corporate Governance refers to the way in which companies are governed and to what purpose. It identifies who has power and accountability, and who makes decisions. It is, in essence, a toolkit that enables management and the board to deal more effectively with the challenges of running a company.
Capital Punishment by Saif Javed (LLM)ppt.pptxOmGod1
This PowerPoint presentation, titled "Capital Punishment in India: Constitutionality and Rarest of Rare Principle," is a comprehensive exploration of the death penalty within the Indian criminal justice system. Authored by Saif Javed, an LL.M student specializing in Criminal Law and Criminology at Kazi Nazrul University, the presentation delves into the constitutional aspects and ethical debates surrounding capital punishment. It examines key legal provisions, significant case laws, and the specific categories of offenders excluded from the death penalty. The presentation also discusses recent recommendations by the Law Commission of India regarding the gradual abolishment of capital punishment, except for terrorism-related offenses. This detailed analysis aims to foster informed discussions on the future of the death penalty in India.
सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यह भी माना था कि मजिस्ट्रेट का यह कर्तव्य है कि वह सुनिश्चित करे कि अधिकारी पीएमएलए के तहत निर्धारित प्रक्रिया के साथ-साथ संवैधानिक सुरक्षा उपायों का भी उचित रूप से पालन करें।
The Presentation for Security Cheques Judgements FOR and AGAINST the Complainant - Aman 16.05.2023.pptx
1. Definition of Security cheque
57. At this stage, I consider it appropriate to analyse as to what is the meaning of the
word "security". What does the issuance of a security cheque entail, and if there is
no specific agreement touching upon this aspect, what would be the rights and
obligations of the parties qua a security cheque, in case the primary obligation - to
secure which the security cheque was given, is not discharged. The Black's Law
Dictionary (6th edition), inter alia, defines "security" to mean:
"Protection; assurance; Indemnification. The term is usually applied to an
obligation, pledge, mortgage, deposit, lien, etc., given by a debtor in order to
assure the payment or performance of his debt, by furnishing the creditor
with a resource to be used in case of failure in the principal obligation.
Collateral given by debtor to secure loan. Document that indicates evidence
of indebtedness. The name is also sometimes given to one who becomes
surety or guarantor for another".
2. Suresh Chandra Goyal vs Amit Singhal on 14 May, 2015
28. There is no magic in the word "security cheque", such that, the moment the
accused claims that the dishonoured cheque (in respect whereof a complaint
under Section 138 of the Act is preferred) was given as a "security cheque", the
Magistrate would acquit the accused. The expression "security cheque" is not a
statutorily defined expression in the NI Act. The NI Act does not per se carve out an
exception in respect of a 'security cheque' to say that a complaint in respect of such
a cheque would not be maintainable. There can be mirade situations in which
the cheque issued by the accused may be called as security cheque, or may have been
issued by way of a security, i.e. to provide an assurance or comfort to the drawee, that
in case of failure of the primary consideration on the due date, or on the happening (or
not happening) of a contingency, the security may be enforced. While in some
situations, the dishonor of such a cheque may attract the penal provisions contained
in Section 138 of the Act, in others it may not.
4. Supreme Court of India
M/S Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd And Ors vs M/S Magnum Aviation Pvt Ltd And Anr on 7 April,
2014
Author: R Lodha
Bench: R.M. Lodha, Shiva Kirti Singh Order Against the complainant
In para 9 that the cheque has to be drawn in ‘discharge of existing or past adjudicated
liability' in order to attract the offence under sec.138 of N I Act.
19. The above reasoning of the Delhi High Court is clearly flawed inasmuch as it failed to keep in mind
the fine distinction between civil liability and criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. If at the
time of entering into a contract, it is one of the conditions of the contract that the purchaser has to pay the
amount in advance and there is breach of such condition then purchaser may have to make good the loss
that might have occasioned to the seller but that does not create a criminal liability under Section 138. For
a criminal liability to be made out under Section 138, there should be legally enforceable debt or other
liability subsisting on the date of drawal of the cheque. We are unable to accept the view of the Delhi
High Court that the issuance of cheque towards advance payment at the time of signing such contract has
to be considered as subsisting liability and dishonour of such cheque amounts to an offence under Section
138 of the N.I. Act. The Delhi High Court has traveled beyond the scope of Section 138 of the N.I. Act by
holding that the purpose of enacting Section 138 of the N.I. Act would stand defeated if after placing
orders and giving advance payments, the instructions for stop payments are issued and orders are
cancelled. In what we have discussed above, if a cheque is issued as an advance payment for purchase of
the goods and for any reason purchase order is not carried to its logical conclusion either because of its
cancellation or otherwise and material or goods for which purchase order was placed is not supplied by
the supplier, in our considered view, the cheque cannot be said to have been drawn for an existing debt or
liability.
5. Gujarat High Court
Shanku Concretes Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Gujarat on 30 November, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000 CriLJ 1988, (2000) 2 GLR 753
Author: J Vora
Bench: J Vora
JUDGMENT J.R. Vora, J.
Order Against the complainant
17. Therefore, the accused has right to approach the High Court at any stage for
quashing with the allegations that complaint prima facie does not disclose any offence.
In such circumstances, when it appears to the High Court under Section 482 of the
Code that complaint does not disclose any offence, it has ample powers to quash the
proceedings and the complaint and accused need not in all cases be relegated to the
learned Magistrate directing the accused to file proper application for discharge or
dropping of the proceedings. As discussed above, the complaint filed under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in this case discloses no criminal liability as
envisaged under Section 138 of the Act and, therefore, the complaint is required to be
quashed.
6. Andhra High Court
Swastik Coaters Pvt. Ltd. vs Deepak Brothers And Ors. on 26 December, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1997 (1) ALD Cri 370, 1997 (1) ALT Cri 371, 1997 89 CompCas 564 AP,
1997 CriLJ 1942
Bench: B Raikote
J.R. Vora, J.
Order Against the complainant
From this evidence it is clear that it is admitted on behalf of the complainant that no authorisation letter or
any resolution was filed in this case authorising the present Director to institute the present proceedings.
Company being by itself a legal person and it is the company which is the holder in due course and that
company alone could file the complaint under Section 142(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As
per Section 142(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act no Court shall take cognizance of any offence
punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act except upon a complaint in writing made
by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque. According to me one of the Directors of the
company cannot be said to be a payee or holder in due course in terms of Section 142(A) of the
Negotiable Instruments Act. However, it does not mean that there cannot be authorisation to file a
complaint. He can be authorised to file a complaint. Such power or authorisation to file a complaint could
also be conferred by Memorandum of Association or Articles of Association. In the instant case no such
authorisation is proved. In similar circumstances, I have held in "M/s. Satish and Co. v. S.R. Traders"
vide my judgment and order dated 28-11-1996 in Criminal Appeal No. 180/95 that without such an
authorisation a Director or any person similarly situated cannot maintain a complaint under Section
142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the Court
below is correct in negativing the contention of the complainant in this behalf also.
7. Madras High Court
M/S. Balaji Seafoods Exports ... vs Mac Industries Ltd, S. Pichalah, ... on 13 October, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1999 (1) CTC 6
Bench: A Raman
J.
Order Against the complainant
9. There is yet another flaw in this matter. The agreement refers to the fact that a cheque for
Rs. 35 lakhs shall be given as security for the advance received. Therefore, the cheque was
issued for Rs. 35 lakhs. But the claim made in the notice was for Rs.39,43,508. Therefore, i
am of the view that this is a case where the provisions under Section 138 of the act will not
apply. A reading of the agreements between the parties does not lend support to such a view.
Of course, the learned counsel for the respondent referred to the later part of Clause 5. The
later part shows that MI shall be at liberty to encash such cheques in settlement of the
amounts due from the processor. That cheque was given in pursuance of an earlier agreement
and not the latter agreement. Therefore, obviously, it does not refer to the cheque received for
Rs. 35 lakhs. It refer to cheques and not the cheque. The clause provides the parties or the 1st
party to initiate further proceedings including action under section 138 of the Act in respect
of cheques handed over and that too with not to later agreement.
10. Therefore, I am of the considered view that as an undated cheque having been given only
as security, the provision of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not at all
attracted and hence, the complaint against the accused under section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act cannot be maintained at all.
8. Supply House, Represented by Managing Partner v. Ullas, Proprietor Bright Agencies and another;
J.
Order Against the complainant
5. Therefore, Ext.P1 cheque cannot be stated to be one issued in discharge of the
liability to the tune of the amount covered by it, which was really issued, as is revealed
by Ext.D1, as the price amount for 28 numbers of mixies, which the complainant had
not supplied. Therefore the acquittal of the accused cannot be stated to be unjustified to
invite interference in the appeal
10. Supreme Court of India
M/S M. M. T. C. Ltd. & Anr vs M/S Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. ... on 19 November, 2001
Author: S N Variava
Bench: K.T.Thomas, S.N.Variava
CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1173-1174 of 2001 Special Leave Petition
(crl.) 289-290 of 2000
249. It has been held that even though the cheque is dishonoured by reason of 'stop
payment' instruction an offence under Section 138 could still be made out. It is held that
the presumption under Section 139 is attracted in such a case also. The authority shows
that even when the cheuqe is dishonoured by reason of stop payment instructions by
virtue of Section 139 the Court has to presume that the cheque was received by the
holder for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability. Of course this is a
rebuttable presumption.
11. Every Cheque Ever Issued In India Is A 'Security' Cheque
"A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless
piece of paper under every circumstance."Just because a cheque is issued as a security does not
mean that it will not attract the offence as defined under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ('NI
Act'). This position of law as enunciated by the Apex Court in Sripati Singh (Since Deceased) ... vs The
State Of Jharkhand on 28 October, 2021
Author: A.S. Bopanna
Bench: M.R. Shah, A.S. Bopanna
22. These aspects would primafacie indicate that there was a transaction between the parties towards which a
legally recoverable debt was claimed by the appellant and the cheque issued by the respondent No.2 was
presented. On such cheque being dishonoured, cause of action had arisen for issuing a notice and presenting the
criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act on the payment not being made. The further defence as to
whether the loan had been discharged as agreed by respondent No.2 and in that circumstance the cheque which
had been issued as security had not remained live for payment subsequent thereto etc. at best can be a defence
for the respondent No.2 to be put forth and to be established in the trial. In any event, it was not a case for the
Court to either refuse to take cognizance or to discharge the respondent No.2 in the manner it has been done by
the High Court. Therefore, though a criminal complaint under Section 420 IPC was not sustainable in the facts
and circumstances of the instant case, the complaint under section 138 of the N.I Act was maintainable and all
contentions and the defence were to be considered during the course of the trial.
12. Aman’s Observation based on research ::
Section 138 is heavily lopsided to
complainant, because its presumed that if
accused had issued a cheque, its for
discharge of a liability. Many judgements
can be produced in case you seek.
Thank you
Aman vijay Jindal ( Gupta)
+91 9999700464