Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.24 seconds)
Hari Shamsher Kaushik vs Divesh Gupta & Ors. on 24 October, 2011 cites

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

10. Now let see whether the complainant has proved his case against accused No.1 or not. By his affidavit Ex.C-1 complainant has proved all the exhibited documents. By virtue of the Section 146 N.I.Act, dishonour of the cheque stand proved. By virtue of mandatory presumptions of law arising u/s 118 & 139 N.I.Act, existence of legal liability can be treated as proved. It would not be out of place to mention here the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa vs S.Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1898 decided on 07.05.2010 wherein the court overruled the judgment titled as Krishna Janardan Bhatt vs D.G. Hegde AIR 2008 SC 1325 and held that "The presumption raised by Section 138 of the Act does indeed included the existence of a legal enforceable debt or liability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Smt. Bandeep Kaur vs S. Avneet Singh on 19 December, 2007

Furthermore, a bare look on the cheque in question reveals that the cheque in question was signed only by the accused No. 1 namely Divesh Gupta. Although the cheque in question has been issued from the joint account of Divesh Gupta and Dhanu Gupta but as noted above the cheque bears signatures of only accused No.1 namely Divesh Gupta. It is settled law that the offence u/s 138 N.I.Act is made out against that person who is the drawer of the cheque. In the present case the drawer of the cheque is only accused No.1 namely Divesh Gupta and not the accused No.2 namely Dhanu Gupta. The mere fact that the cheque in question was issued from the joint account of accused No.1 & 2 does not make the accused No.2 liable for the offence u/s 138 N.I.Act unless and until the cheque bears the signatures of the accused No.2. Furthermore, the complainant has nowhere pressed or alleged specifically that the accused Hari Shamsher Kaushik vs Divesh Gupta & Ors. Page 11 of 14 No.2 is also the signatory of cheque and she should be punished accordingly. In my considered view, when the cheque in question do not bears the signatures of the accused No.2, she cannot be held liable for the offence u/s 138 N.I.Act merely because the cheque was issued by his husband/accused No.1 from the joint account of the both. In a very important judgment the Punjab & Haryana High Court dealt with the almost similar facts as facts of the present case and held that non signatory of the cheque cannot be held liable for offence u/s 138 N.I.Act merely because the cheque was issued from the joint account by the other person bearing the signatures of only that person. The High Court made these observations in the case titled as "Bandeep Kaur vs S.Avneet Singh" III (2008) BC 523, the relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced here "..... though, the cheque was drawn to a joint bank account, which is to be operated by anyone i.e., the petitioner or by her husband, but the controversial document is the cheque, the liability regarding dishonouring of which can be fastened on the drawer of it. In other words, it could well be explained that the cheque was issued by Pawandeep Singh, non-petitioner in discharge of his liability and not by the petitioner. The petitioner neither had any dealings with the complainant, nor she is the drawer. Mere fact that the petitioner happens to be the spouse of the first accused, is hardly sufficient to condemn her as the co-accused with him. On the perusal of the penal provisions as contained under the Act, it transpires that there is no such provision regarding taking cognizance against a person other than the "drawer" of the cheque, subject to the conditions, as mentioned in the proviso to Section 138 of the Act and the other provisions Hari Shamsher Kaushik vs Divesh Gupta & Ors. Page 12 of 14 mentioned in Chapter XVII of the Act....."
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 30 - A N Jindal - Full Document
1   2 Next