Back
GITA GOPI
M. SETU MADHAVAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
GITA GOPI, J.
1. Rule. Mr. Hardik Mehta, learned APP and Mr. K.J. Panchal, learned advocate, waive service of notice of Rule on behalf of respective parties. Rule is fixed forthwith.
2. The present revision applications have been filed under section 397 read with section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘C.R.P.C.’ for short) with prayer in Criminal Revision Application No. 634 of 2024 to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 20.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2019 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat and the judgment and order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 19541 of 2011 by the 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. While, in Criminal Revision Application No. 648 of 2024, the prayer is made to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 20.04.2024 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 176 of 2019 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surat and the judgment and order dated 26.04.2019 passed in Criminal Case No. 19540 of 2011 by the 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat.
2.1 The judgment of the 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat on 26.04.2019 was a common judgment in C
A cheque dishonor case under Section 138 requires proof of a legally enforceable debt and proper service of legal notice, both of which were lacking in this case.
Point of law : Negotiable instruments - Though in the notice, the demand for compensation, interest, cost, etc. is also made, the drawer will be absolved from his liability under Section 138 of the N....
Dishonour of cheque – By making a higher demand in a notice sent under Section 138(b) of N.I. Act, would not by itself invalidate notice provided, details of claim towards additional amounts are spec....
Dishonour of cheque – By making a higher demand in a notice sent under Section 138(b) of N.I. Act, would not by itself invalidate notice provided, details of claim towards additional amounts are spec....
Dishonour of cheque – Mere non-filing of any suit by complainant to recover amount due under promissory note does not entitle accused to claim order of acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of valid service of notice and the burden of proof regarding the financial capacity of the complainant.
A corporate entity and its directors are vicariously liable for dishonored cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act, with the presumption of liability shifting to the accused to prove otherwise.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure of settlement agreements to fructify can lead to the debt becoming legally enforceable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
