Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The appellant has himself unequivocally admitted during his cross-examination before the Trial Court that the cheque amount was paid as a bribe to the respondent for securing Government employment in the Punjab Police by certain job aspirants.
Calcutta High Court held that a juridical person cannot be physically apprehended, and such an order is not executable.
Calcutta High Court noted that the impugned notice has not been produced before the Court, thus not proved, the case’s foundation is wrong and thus not maintainable.
Calcutta High Court delved into the legalities surrounding the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, emphasizing that it is a “rebuttable presumption”.
In the instant matter of cheque bounce, on the date of presentation of the cheque, the company which allegedly issued the cheque was no more existence.
In a suo motu petition for expeditious trial of cases under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Supreme Court directed for creation of Special Courts with retired judicial/administrative officers, as a pilot study for a period of one year from 01-09-2022 to 31-08-2023.
“Section 143A empowers a Court to pass an order on interim compensation in favour of the complainant where the accused pleads not guilty to the accusations made in the complaint.”
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited and that the Madras High Court ‘could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 — S. 12-A — Rejection of plaint for non-compliance with S. 12-A i.e. in cases where
Supreme Court: In an appeal against a judgment passed by the Calcutta High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision Application filed
“Quashing of a complaint is a serious matter. Complaint cannot be quashed for the asking. For quashing of a complaint, it must be shown that no offence is made out at all against the Director or Partner.”
by Soumyaa Sharma†