Posts

Showing posts from August, 2022

Exparte decree in former suit will operate as res judicata in subsequent suit

IBC is a complete Code in itself - The provisions of the IBC would prevail notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force

After the CIRP is initiated, all actions including any action under the SARFAESI Act to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest are prohibited

The provisions of the Code are essentially intended to bring the corporate debtor to its feet and are not of money recovery proceedings as such.

The Court allowed withdrawal of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against a builder in an application filed by three home buyers in view of a settlement plan agreed upon by the majority of them - this provision is to regulate the company - not to kill the same.

IBC proceedings should not become recovery proceedings - IBC not akin to a recovery legislation for creditors, but is a legislation beneficial for the corporate debtor - limitation doesn't start when the debt become due - commences on date of default.

Non production of Income Tax Returns by Complainant And, that Complainant failed to establish existence of legally enforceable debt - Transaction amount exceeding Rs.20,000 to be made by Demand Draft or Account Payee Cheque, as per Income-tax Act - Non compliance of same would entall penal consequences .

Presumption of innocence of accused - Cannot be applied to offence u/S. 138 - Presumption in favour of holder - All basic ingredients of Ss. 138, 118 and 139 are apparent on face of record - defence that transaction with third party not proved.

Initiation of prosecution under Section 138 - Money Suit for recovery of money also filed - is maintenable - borrower not entitled to enquire final capacity of lender - Complaint Maintainable even time barred debt.

Stay order granted by Supreme Court will not vacate on expiry of six month.

Legally Enforceable Debt - Is not a matter of presumption u/S.139 - Every accused presumed to be innocent until proven to be guilty - Acquittal upheld.(overruled by AIR 2010 SC 1898)

Complainant being house wife - failed to prove her means to pay the amount - accused rebutted the presumption - Acquittal upheld.

property is inherited through female line or maternal grandparents- It is separate property- Not a joint family property.

Defence of accused that 10 cheques issued towards repayment of loan back in 1995 - Accused admitting his signature on cheques and pronote,presumption under S. 139 would operate against him - Conviction proper.

Plaint can be rejected if it is barred by Judgment of supreme court

Where a plain has been rejected on a technical ground, the plaintiff is always at liberty to file a fresh suit after rectifying the said defects.

Cheque as well as signature on it not disputed by accused respondent - Presumption under S. 139 would be attracted - Story brought out by accused that cheque was given to complainant long back in 1999 as a security to a loan - rejected - punishment upheld

Handwritten notice containing all necessary ingredients and fulfilled mandatory requirements under S. 138, Proviso (b) - Constitute valid notice - delay in filing complaint condoned.

Dishonour of cheque - Belated complaint - Cognizance by condoning delay - S.142(b) Proviso conferring such power.

Partition having been effected between Co-Owners in 1979 itself, 1990 or 2005 Act not applicable-Held, daughter not entitled to claim any right/share in Suit property.

Father of Plaintiff died 15 years before filing of Suit and her Grandfather, original Owner of properties, passed away 30 years ago - Respondents have possession and Patta since 1985 - No proof led in by Plaintiff to establish joint possession - Partition suit dismissed

Accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant in a particular case did not have the capacity

Every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, endorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration - suit seeking declaration that the cheque issued in the name of the appellant was a security - such reliefs are barred by law

When a company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act - complaint and the sworn statement (either orally or by affidavit) to the effect that the complainant (Company) is represented by an authorized person who has knowledge, would be sufficient - Such averment and prima facie material is sufficient for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance and issue process.

Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) are negotiable instruments - Negotiable instrument is payable to order, the maker, acceptor or endorser would be discharged from liability when payment is made to the 'holder' of the instrument.

The moratorium provisions contained in Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 would apply only to the corporate debtor and that the natural persons mentioned in Section 141 of the Act would continue to be statutorily liable under the provisions of the Act.

Presumption in favour of holder of cheque that same has been issued for discharge of any debtor other liability - Existence of legally recoverable debt - Is not a matter of presumption u/S.139 - Accused not required to step into witness-box - He may discharge his burden on basis of materials already brought on record.

Promissory note alleged to have been executed as a collateral security and not for "value received" as mentioned therein - Failure of defendant to prove non-existence of consideration - Onus cannot be shifted on plaintiff.

Marking available parking space for building visitors is a valid reason for tenant's eviction under Section 11(3) Kerala Buildings Act, 1965.

Marking available parking space for building visitors is a valid reason for tenant's eviction under Section 11(3) Kerala Buildings Act, 1965.

2018 amendment to the Specific Relief Act is prospective and cannot apply to those transactions that took place prior to its coming into force - purchaser was not ready or willing to perform his part of the contract within the time stipulated and accordingly, specific performance cannot be granted for the entire contract

'Stop payment' instructions - Cheque on presentation to Bank being dishonoured - Accused liable to be convicted - director of company liable.

Date and month on Promissory Note altered - Promissory Note so altered, void as per Section 87-Suit based on sald Note, dismissed - burden of proof on Plaintiff

Invalid cheque - Can be re-validated voluntarily by altering the dates so as to give fresh life to cheques for another 6 months .

Legally Enforceable Debt - Is not a matter of presumption u/S.139 - Every accused presumed to be innocent until proven to be guilty - Acquittal upheld.(overruled by AIR 2010 SC 1898)

Accused filed Application before Magistrate under Section 245 raising preliminary objections - Accused cannot be convicted without giving opportunity to present her evidence Denial amounts to unfair trial .

suit in question for declaration that provisions of law relating to assessment were ultra vires and for refund of tax illegally collected was not barred.

A drawer of a cheque is liable even if the details in the cheque have been filled up not by the drawer, but by some other person - Evidence of a hand-writing expert on whether the accused had filled in the details in the cheque would be immaterial.

Accused acted as Agent for complainant's husband in respect of property transaction - Accused sold property and received entire sale consideration and issued cheques in favour of wife of complainant -Said cheques got dishonoured - Conviction proper.

Cheque issued from account of firm in order to refund earnest money to complainant - Statutory presumption not satisfactorily rebutted- Conviction of accused, proper

Upon termination of agreement amount paid to 'N' was refundable to complainant - Five cheques handed over to complainant were to be returned - Endorsement made by respondent on promissory note that cheques can be presented on date mentioned - Failure on part of 'N' to liquidate liability within one month - Conviction proper.

Decree passed by High Court became enforceable in view of doctrine of merger - Undisputedly,petition filed within period of limitation from date of judgment of High Court - Petition not barred by law of limitation.

Cheques issued for discharge of sale consideration were dishonoured - Account books or stock register not produced by complainant to prove sale - Held, cheques were not issued for discharge of liability - Accused entitled to acquittal.

Complaint alleging - Can be filed by power of attorney holder of payee - When power of attorney holder has full knowledge of transaction, his statement can be recorded by Magistrate for verification of complaint.

Power of attorney holder of payee or a holder in due course - Can file complaint.

A civil suit claiming reliefs beyond the scope of the Act which bars its jurisdiction will be maintainable.

Complaint not containing any assertion that notice has been served on accused - Complaint liable to be quashed.

Not signed by complainant (pages) but by his Power of Attorney holder - Not maintainable - Power of Attorney holder would not be a holder in due course of the cheque.

Complaint under S. 138- Need not be signed by complainant himself - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and filed along with power of attorney - Is valid.

Complaint not signed by payee but by her power of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder cannot be said to be either payee or holder in due course - Cannot file complaint.

complaint Filed by wife/legal representative of deceased payee, is maintainable.

No endorsement had been made on overleaf of cheque by payee thereby enabling complainant to possess same in his own name so as to receive contents thereof from accused - Complainant could not be considered to be holder in due course.

Averment that accused was at time of offence in charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company - Is essential - Director of Company - Not deemed to be vicariously liable merely by virtue of office he holds.

Cheques dishonoured issued by sister concern of debtor company to repay latter's outstanding dues to Bank - Complaint filed by Bank being 'holder in due course' against Directors of sister concern - Not maintainable in absence of specific allegation that said accused-directors were in charge of affairs of Company