Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Allahabad High Court said that in the eye of law, wife and husband have separate entity. The present case is not a case that the wife, sole proprietor of the Firm had provided the cheque signed by or on behalf of the applicant
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of nature of proceedings under the two Acts are quite different and would not intercede each other.
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.
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† Anwesha Pal†† and Yashwardhan Singh†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 11
“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.”
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Nazeer and JK Maheshwari*, JJ has called upon a larger bench to decide if on similar
Supreme Court: In a case where an offender under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was denied the
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petitions, the question that came up before that Court
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary, JJ. dismissed a petition which was filed praying
Supreme Court: Explaining the law on vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the bench of Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna*,
Madras High Court: Teekaa Raman, J., observed that there is no mandatory provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act that both the signature
Orissa High Court: R K Pattnaik, J. dismissed the petition and held that the ground on which the petition is raised is
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Atul Sreedharan, J. allowed a petition which was filed for quashing of Crime which was registered for an
Karnataka High Court: M. Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order regarding attachment of property and auction notification. The
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of the term ‘debt or any other liability’ under Section 138 of the NI Act, the bench
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjeev Kumar, J., held that the sentence of fine under Section 138 of N.I.Act must
Kerala High Court: Gopinath P., J., held that adding or omitting prefix like M/s, Mr And Mrs. while drawing the cheque is
The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint.
Allahabad High Court: Vivek Varma, J., refused to quash a complaint case filed under Section 138 NI Act and directed the trial