Case Laws-Negotiable Instruments Act [NI]

Whether proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 abate on account of initiation of proceedings under Section 94(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code or can be proceeded simultaneously? – Tushar Sharma Vs. State Bank of India – Himachal Pradesh High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Whether proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 abate on account of initiation of proceedings under Section 94(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code or can be proceeded simultaneously? – Tushar Sharma Vs. State Bank of India – Himachal Pradesh High Court Read Post »

The Appellate Court cannot reverse the order of acquittal only because another view could have been possibly taken based on the evidence on record – Susheela Yogish Bungle and Anr. Vs. V.T. Impex Ltd. and Anr. – Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the law relating to interference in an appeal against acquittal is well-settled. The Appellate Court cannot reverse the order of acquittal only because another view could have been possibly taken based on the evidence on record. It is open for the Appellate Court to interfere with an order of acquittal only if, after re-appreciation of evidence, the Appellate Court concludes that the only possible finding which could be arrived at is that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Appellate Court cannot reverse the order of acquittal only because another view could have been possibly taken based on the evidence on record – Susheela Yogish Bungle and Anr. Vs. V.T. Impex Ltd. and Anr. – Supreme Court Read Post »

A person cannot be made vicariously liable under the provisions of Section 141 of NI Act, merely by stating that he was in-charge and responsible for the day-to-day-conduct of the accused company at the relevant time when the offence was committed – Mr. Sandip Vinodkumar Patel and Ors. Vs. STCI Finance Ltd. and Anr. – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the petitioners were independent, non-executive Director and that the complaints lack the necessary averments to endorse as to what was the active role of the petitioners and as to how the petitioners were guilty or responsible for the offence, this Court is of the opinion that continuance of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The present case is a fit case to exercise discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

A person cannot be made vicariously liable under the provisions of Section 141 of NI Act, merely by stating that he was in-charge and responsible for the day-to-day-conduct of the accused company at the relevant time when the offence was committed – Mr. Sandip Vinodkumar Patel and Ors. Vs. STCI Finance Ltd. and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Even though offence under Section 138 NI Act is quasi criminal in nature, the outcome of settlement in mediation is required to receive imprimatur or authoritative approval of the Court, in case the proceedings are settled in mediation as per the Mediation Act, 2023 – Smt. Nisha Devi Vs. Shri Gur Kirpal Singh @ Guddu – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court referring the Section 26 of the Mediation Act, 2023 held that even though offence under Section 138 N.I. Act is quasi criminal in nature, the ‘outcome of settlement’ in mediation is required to receive imprimatur or authoritative approval of the Court, in case the proceedings are settled in mediation.

However, it is important to underscore that wheresoever, compromise/ settlement/compounding itself is recorded by the Court, it is inherent that Court is satisfied that the settlement is lawful and has been voluntarily entered between the parties.

There is no bar that unless the matter is forwarded to mediation for settlement, the same cannot be entered before the Court itself. The Court only needs to be satisfied that the settlement is lawful and consent of the parties is voluntary and not obtained under coercion or undue influence.

Even though offence under Section 138 NI Act is quasi criminal in nature, the outcome of settlement in mediation is required to receive imprimatur or authoritative approval of the Court, in case the proceedings are settled in mediation as per the Mediation Act, 2023 – Smt. Nisha Devi Vs. Shri Gur Kirpal Singh @ Guddu – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Petitioner having delivered the cheque in respect of a personal liability, cannot be absolved merely because the petitioner issued a cheque in the name of his proprietorship firm of which he is the proprietor – Ashish Verma Vs. Parmod Kumar – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that since a ‘proprietary concern’ is not a separate entity from the ‘proprietor’, it may not be necessary to array ‘proprietary concern’ separately in the facts and circumstances of the case, since the liability incurred by the petitioner is in the personal capacity. Petitioner having delivered the cheque in respect of a personal liability, cannot be absolved merely because the petitioner issued a cheque in the name of his firm ‘Verma Computers’ of which he is the ‘proprietor’ and has not been impleaded as an accused.

Petitioner having delivered the cheque in respect of a personal liability, cannot be absolved merely because the petitioner issued a cheque in the name of his proprietorship firm of which he is the proprietor – Ashish Verma Vs. Parmod Kumar – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the NI Act is essentially based on pure common sense – Amit Jain Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Anr. – Delhi High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to

Presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the NI Act is essentially based on pure common sense – Amit Jain Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Singh and Anr. – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top