Case Laws-NI-High Courts

Stayed on proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 upon initiation of personal insolvency in view of moratorium under Section 96 of IBC – Rakesh Rajpal Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta – Madhya Pradesh High Court

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court as well as Revisional Court have erroneously refused to stay the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner is facing proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and on his application, an order under Section 96 regarding interim moratorium has been passed and, therefore the proceedings ought to have been stayed. Considering the aforesaid submissions, as an interim measure, it is directed that the further proceedings pending before the concerning trial Court shall remain stayed.

Stayed on proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 upon initiation of personal insolvency in view of moratorium under Section 96 of IBC – Rakesh Rajpal Vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta – Madhya Pradesh High Court Read Post »

If Cheque’s signature differs from the bank specimen signature, the issues of its issuance and a legally enforceable debt can be resolved based on other evidence, there is no necessity to send it for comparison by an expert – P.K. Sangaman Vs. A.Palanisamy – Madras High Court

The Hon’ble Madras High Court held that since admittedly the signature in the cheque differs from the specimen signature of the petitioner given to the bank, the questions as to whether the petitioner issued the cheque and whether it was issued for a legally enforceable debt can be determined with reference to other evidence on record and therefore there is no necessity to send it for comparison by an expert. It is needless to say that the learned Magistrate may consider the defence of the accused and the claim of the respondent after considering all the evidence on record.

If Cheque’s signature differs from the bank specimen signature, the issues of its issuance and a legally enforceable debt can be resolved based on other evidence, there is no necessity to send it for comparison by an expert – P.K. Sangaman Vs. A.Palanisamy – Madras High Court Read Post »

Can merely because the litigation has reached to a revisional stage or that even beyond that stage, the nature of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, be treated as if the same is falling under Table-II of Section 320 CrPC? | Are the parties, in reference to offence under Section 138 NI Act read with Section 147, at liberty to compound the matter at any stage even after the dismissal of the proceedings? – Natarajan Vs. Mani @ Sundharamoorthy – Madras High Court

The Hon’ble Madras High Court is not in agreement that when the adjudication of a criminal offence has reached to the state of revisional level, there cannot be any compromise without permission of the court in all case including the offence punishable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or the offence mentioned under section 320 of Cr.P.C., can be compounded only if High Court or Court of Sessions grants permission for such purpose. The Court presently, concerned with an offence punishable under ‘N.I. Act’. It is evident that the permissibility of the compounding of an offence is linked to the perceived seriousness of the offence and the nature of the remedy provided.

Can merely because the litigation has reached to a revisional stage or that even beyond that stage, the nature of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, be treated as if the same is falling under Table-II of Section 320 CrPC? | Are the parties, in reference to offence under Section 138 NI Act read with Section 147, at liberty to compound the matter at any stage even after the dismissal of the proceedings? – Natarajan Vs. Mani @ Sundharamoorthy – Madras High Court Read Post »

No bar under the law for simultaneous proceeding both under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (NI Act) and under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of the same transaction and the question of enrichment in such circumstances does not arise – Madhusudan Garai Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. – Calcutta High Court

Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that a proceeding under section 138 of the N.I. Act is not a proceeding so called for realization of arrear amount or for recovery of money. Section 138 deals with punishment for dishonor of cheque for insufficiency of fund etc, whereas the object of a proceeding under the SARFAESI Act is to ensure that dues of secured creditors including banks finanical institutions are recovered from the default borrower without any obstruction or without intervention of courts or tribunals. Accordingly there is no bar under the law for simultaneous proceeding both under the N.I. Act and under the SARFAESI Act in respect of the same transaction and the question of enrichment in such circumstances does not arise at all.

No bar under the law for simultaneous proceeding both under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (NI Act) and under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 in respect of the same transaction and the question of enrichment in such circumstances does not arise – Madhusudan Garai Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. – Calcutta High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top