Skip to main content

Section 138 - cheque - stop payment - Section 482 Crpc - jurisdiction - Supreme Court

1) Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Limited v. Rajvir Industries Limited and others
2) Rallis India Limited v. Poduru Vidya Bhushan and others
3) Pulsive Technologies P. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat
4) Modi Cements Ltd. vs. Kuchil Kumar Nandi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 471 OF 2015
(Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 5295 OF 2014)
HMT Watches Ltd. ... Appellant
Versus
M.A. Abida & Anr. …
Respondents


A high court cannot go into the factual aspects of a dispute over stop-payment of cheques and they should be tested during the trial, the Supreme Court stated in the judgment, HMT Watches Ltd vs M A Abida. The latter was a re-distribution stockist of the firm and she issued 57 cheques which bounced. The company filed complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act. She argued that the cheques were given as security and therefore there was no liability, the main ingredient in Section 138 of the Act. Moreover, the cheques were stopped not because of insufficiency of fund. The Kerala High Court accepted her arguments and quashed the complaints. The firm appealed to the Supreme Court which stated that the high court had exceeded its jurisdiction by analysing disputed facts. It asked the trial court to proceed with the criminal complaint.


The High Court has erred in law in going into the factual aspects of the matter which were not admitted between the parties.

High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by giving its opinion on disputed questions of fact, before the trial court.


1)  instruction of “stop payment” issued to the banker could be sufficient to make the accused liable for an offence punishable under Section 138

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...
22 comments
Read more

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...
11 comments
Read more

Private Colleges Cannot Withhold Student’s Certificates For Payment Of Amount

In a significant judgement, the , has held that private self financing Colleges cannot withhold certificates of students, for payment of amount. The practise of withholding the certificates, and non-issuance of transfer certificate to students, to coerce them into meeting unconscionable demands like paying entire course fee for leaving the course midway, or to force them to serve the institution after completion of course, etc is very rampant. In clear unambiguous terms, the Court has held that such practise is illegal and opposed to public policy. Often faced with the supreme bargaining position of the Colleges, the students often execute bonds authorising colleges to do so. But, such bonds have no validity in the eyes of law. It was held that :- “The agreements obtained by the College from petitioners authorising them to withhold the certificates of the petitioners cannot be accepted as an approved social conduct and the same, in that sense, is unethical. Further, agreements of tha...
Post a Comment
Read more