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
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
Comments
Post a Comment