Mr. Justice A. Badharudeen

Whether second appeal is provided from the appellate decree and judgment passed by a Commercial Appellate Court in the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? – State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Dr. Praveen Kumar T.K. – Kerala High Court

Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that:

(i) Care has been taken by the parliament to prevent Appeals and to make some of the judgments which made Appeals against certain interlocutory orders possible inoperative.
(ii) The legislature, in its wisdom, introduced a non-obstante clause in Section 13(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, limiting right of appeals subject to the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and no appeal shall lie from any order or decree of a Commercial Division or Commercial Court, otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act. If so, Commercial Courts Act does not provide second appeal.

Whether second appeal is provided from the appellate decree and judgment passed by a Commercial Appellate Court in the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015? – State of Kerala and Ors. Vs. Dr. Praveen Kumar T.K. – Kerala High Court Read Post »

What are the essentials of a promissory note? | Does Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 mandate attesting witness to a promissory note? – Fakrudheen Vs. Abdul Khader – Kerala High Court

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

What are the essentials of a promissory note? | Does Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 mandate attesting witness to a promissory note? – Fakrudheen Vs. Abdul Khader – Kerala High Court Read Post »

Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has no application to condone delay in filing a petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Mathew P J and Anr. Vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co Ltd. – Kerala High Court

Hon’ble Kerala High Court held that:
(i) When the special statute provides specified period of limitation, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application.
(ii) Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has no application to condone delay in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
(iii) A conjoint reading of Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act along with its proviso makes the position emphatically clear that challenge against an arbitral award beyond 4 months cannot be entertained, as the said claim is barred by limitation.

Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 has no application to condone delay in filing a petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Mathew P J and Anr. Vs. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Co Ltd. – Kerala High Court Read Post »

Whether the court, where the cheque was presented through an account maintained by the payee/holder for collection, has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881? – Alfa One Global Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Padmanabhan – Kerala High Court

Hon’ble High Court held that:
(i) To be on the core issue, reading Section 142(2) (a) and the explanation to clause (a), it is emphatically clear that, for the purposes of clause (a), where a cheque is delivered for collection at any branch of the bank of the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered to the branch of the bank in which the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account.
(ii) A conjoint reading of Section 142(2)(a) along with explanation thereof, makes the position emphatically clear that, when a cheque is delivered or issued to a person with liberty to present the cheque for collection at any branch of the bank where the payee or holder in due course, then, the cheque shall be deemed to have been delivered or issued to the branch of the bank, in which, the payee or holder in due course, as the case may be, maintains the account, and within the jurisdiction of the court, where such cheque was presented for collection, will have jurisdiction to entertain complaint alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.
(iii) In view of the above finding, the word ‘delivered’ used in Section 142(2)(a) of the NI Act has no significance and significance must be given to the text ‘for collection through an account’.

Whether the court, where the cheque was presented through an account maintained by the payee/holder for collection, has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881? – Alfa One Global Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Nirmala Padmanabhan – Kerala High Court Read Post »

Is moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would apply to non-corporate debtor/debtors dealt under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? – M/s PVS Memorial Hospital Vs. Dr. Satheesh Iype – Kerala High Court

The Hon’ble High Court held that in view of the legal position settled by the Three Bench of the Apex Court in P. Mohanraj & Ors. Vs. M/S. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd. (2021) ibclaw.in 24 SC, holding the view that, moratorium provision contained under Section 14 (1) of IBC would apply only to a corporate debtor and the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 continuing to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the N.I.Act. Therefore, the complaint against the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 7) cannot be quashed, simply on the ground of moratorium order. However, the prosecution against the 1st petitioner/1st accused being corporate debtor can be kept in abeyance till finalization of the moratorium proceedings, while allowing prosecution against petitioners 2 to 7, natural persons.

Is moratorium under Section 14(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would apply to non-corporate debtor/debtors dealt under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? – M/s PVS Memorial Hospital Vs. Dr. Satheesh Iype – Kerala High Court Read Post »

Scroll to Top