Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
M/S Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd And Ors vs M/S Magnum Aviation Pvt Ltd And Anr on 7 April, 2014
The Hon'ble Supreme Court
referred to the case of Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. (supra). In that case
there was a contract for purchase of Aircraft parts. One of the
terms of contract was to make full payment in advance.
Accordingly, cheques were issued. Subsequently, the purchaser
cancelled the purchase orders and requested for return of both the
cheques. Supplier though initially agreed, subsequently deposited
the cheques. Therefore, the complaint was filed for the offence
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 09:51:10 :::
apeal.126.12.jud 33/36
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The question arose before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was, "Whether post dated cheques issued
by the appellant/purchaser as an advance payment could be
considered in discharge of debt or liability?. It has been answered
in the negative. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 15-
Uttam Ram vs Devinder Singh Hudan And Another on 17 December, 2018
17] Whereas, in case of Uttam Ram vs. Devinder Singh
Hudanand & another, (Criminal Appeal No.1545/2019 arising out of
SLP (CRI) No.3452/2019), the Hon'ble Supreme Court convicted the
appellant by reversing the acquittal by the trial Court and by the
High Court. On the basis of evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
refused to give importance to certain discrepancies and given
weightage to admitted liability arising out of a written document.
M/S Womb Laboratories Pvt Ltd vs Vijay Ahuja on 11 September, 2019
DEBT/LIABILITY
47] It is true that it has been interpreted in the case of
M/s. Womb Laboratories (supra) that cheques issued as security
are also covered by the provisions of N.I. Act. Accused has agreed
to pay remaining amount of Rs.12,50,000/- (later on increased to
Rs.13,90,000/-) within 9 months. (as per agreement dated
04/10/2005) [Exh.57]. There is a clause in that agreement. It says
of cancellation of the agreement if cheque not encashed. The
appellate Court has given benefit of this clause to the accused. It is
not correct. Because the accused himself is the drawer of the
cheques and he cannot take the benefit of her own wrong of
dishonouring the cheque and pleading for recession of the
agreement.
Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sampelly Satanarayana Rao vs M/S Indian Renewable Energy ... on 8 May, 2014
50] At this juncture it will be useful to consider the ratio laid
down in case of Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao (supra). When
cheques were issued towards discharge of existing debt/liability,
Section 138 of N.I. Act was attracted.
Sri Venkatesh Bhat A vs Sri Rohidas Shenoy on 3 August, 2009
ABOUT CITATIONS
13] It is true that the observations in case of Venkatesh
Bhat (supra) can be distinguished as facts are different. The
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2020 09:51:10 :::
apeal.126.12.jud 9/36
acquittal by the Magistrate Court was not interfered with by the
High Court of Karnataka. The main reason was legality of the
agreement and factum of issuance of cheque voluntarily was under
1