Case Laws-NI-High Courts

Mere dishonour of the cheque alone cannot form the basis to attract Section 138 of the NI Act – R.Prakash Vs. T.Sivakumar and Anr. – Madras High Court

When the appellant has not established that there exists a legally enforceable debt, which has to be paid by the respondents for which the cheque was issued, which has since been dishonoured, the mere dishonour of the cheque alone cannot form the basis to attract Section 138 of the Act, more so, when it is the case of the respondents that the cheque, which was given for the purpose of carrying out the day-to-day activities has been misused cannot be brushed aside.

Mere dishonour of the cheque alone cannot form the basis to attract Section 138 of the NI Act – R.Prakash Vs. T.Sivakumar and Anr. – Madras High Court Read Post »

Mere fact that the accused regularly appeared before the Court and did not attempt to prolong the trial cannot be the sole consideration for declining to exercise discretion to award compensation under Section 143A of NI Act, 1881 – Bajaj Constructions Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. – Bombay High Court

Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here to know why you’re

Mere fact that the accused regularly appeared before the Court and did not attempt to prolong the trial cannot be the sole consideration for declining to exercise discretion to award compensation under Section 143A of NI Act, 1881 – Bajaj Constructions Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. – Bombay High Court Read Post »

Merely because of initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the signatory of the cheque cannot escape from his liability | Section 96 of IBC does not bar on Court’s direction to deposit an amount as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence under NI Act, 1881 – Anurodh Mittal Vs. Rehat Trading Company and Anr. – Madhya Pradesh High Court

Hon’ble High Court refers P. Mohanraj & Ors. v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 24 SC and Ajay Kumar Radheyshyam Goenka v. Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd. (2023) ibclaw.in 30 SC judgments and holds that considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that merely because of initiation of proceedings under the Code, 2016 the signatory of the cheque cannot escape from his liability, it is held that conviction recorded by Trial Court was not bad on account of initiation of proceedings under the Code, 2016.

Merely because of initiation of proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 the signatory of the cheque cannot escape from his liability | Section 96 of IBC does not bar on Court’s direction to deposit an amount as a condition precedent for suspension of sentence under NI Act, 1881 – Anurodh Mittal Vs. Rehat Trading Company and Anr. – Madhya Pradesh High Court Read Post »

Whether the time for depositing the Compounding Fee as allowed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be extended especially in view of the bar as created by Section 362 CrPC? – Krishan Chand Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. – Himachal Pradesh High Court

Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High Court held that:

(i) The ‘compounding fee’ strictu sensu does not fall within the definition of ‘fine’.
(ii) The compounding fee is nothing, but, an additional burden on the accused, who has not compounded the offence, at the initial stage, i.e. before the learned trial Court, where the compounding can be done, without imposition of any compounding fee, on the accused.
(iii) The compounding fee has no relevance in the adjudication of the controversy involved, in such type of cases.
(iv) The requirement of Section 147 of NI Act is compounding between the parties and the imposition, as well as, the depositing of the compounding fee, is a sort of message to the similarly situated litigants, to compound the offences, at the initial stage of the litigation, in order to avoid payment of the compounding fee.
(v) The payment of compounding fee is a sort of atonement in those cases, where, the compounding has been done at a later stage, i.e., when the lis is pending before the higher Court, as, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has exempted the person, who compounds the offence, at the initial stage.

Whether the time for depositing the Compounding Fee as allowed under Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be extended especially in view of the bar as created by Section 362 CrPC? – Krishan Chand Vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. – Himachal Pradesh High Court Read Post »

On the dishonour of cheques issued in the name of Company under CIRP, Directors cannot be said to be in control and management of the affairs of the company and cannot be prosecuted – Varun Vs. Toolika Pandey – Delhi High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that post the issuance of the moratorium, it is the Insolvency Resolution Professional who has the authority to operate the bank accounts of the company, and on the dishonour of the cheques issued in the name of the company under CIRP, the accused persons/directors therein cannot be said to be in control and management of the affairs of the company, and, therefore, cannot be prosecuted.

On the dishonour of cheques issued in the name of Company under CIRP, Directors cannot be said to be in control and management of the affairs of the company and cannot be prosecuted – Varun Vs. Toolika Pandey – Delhi High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top