Rajco Steel Enterprises vs Kavita Saraff

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 324

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR
Rajco Steel Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Kavita Saraff – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Avnish Pandey, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mohit D. Ram, AOR Ms. Monisha Handa, Adv. Mr. Rajul Shrivastav, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Sharma, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv. Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Ms. Anvita Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Lihzu Shiney Konyak, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

What is the legal question addressed regarding the existence of an enforceable debt in a cheque-dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act? What is the standard of review for appellate courts when evaluating findings of fact in Section 138 proceedings where the complainant relies on debt to sustain liability? What is the result of petitions challenging acquittals where Courts found no evidence of an enforceable debt or liability?

What is the legal question addressed regarding the existence of an enforceable debt in a cheque-dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act?

What is the standard of review for appellate courts when evaluating findings of fact in Section 138 proceedings where the complainant relies on debt to sustain liability?

What is the result of petitions challenging acquittals where Courts found no evidence of an enforceable debt or liability?

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

The common petitioner in these four petitions for special leave to appeal is a partnership firm dealing in iron and steel products. The petitioner has assailed a common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, by which the petitioner’s appeal against acquittal of the first respondent in respect of offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (“1881 Act”) has been dismissed. The petitioner, through its partner, Ramesh Kumar Gupta, had lodged four complaint cases under the aforesaid provision, after four cheques, alleged to have been issued by the accused/respondent no.1, were dishonoured on the ground of insufficiency of funds. The petitioner claims that these cheques were issued between 07.11.2008 and 24.11.2008, drawn on the Axis Bank Limited, Burra Bazar in Kolkata. The relevant particulars regarding these four cheques, as per the petitioner’s case, are reproduced in the following table:-

Cheque No.	Cheque Date	Amount	Date on which cheque was presented for encashment & was returned as dishonoured	Notice Date
713378	07.11.2008	2 Crore	04.05.2009	19.05.2009

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 324

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMARRajco Steel Enterprises – AppellantVersusKavita Saraff – Respondent

What is the legal question addressed regarding the existence of an enforceable debt in a cheque-dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act?

What is the standard of review for appellate courts when evaluating findings of fact in Section 138 proceedings where the complainant relies on debt to sustain liability?

What is the result of petitions challenging acquittals where Courts found no evidence of an enforceable debt or liability?

Cases Referred (14)

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, SANJAY KUMAR
Rajco Steel Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Kavita Saraff – Respondent