Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
P.C. Hari S/o. Late Chakarapani – Appellant
Versus
Shine Varghese – Respondent
ORDER
When the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act 1961”) prohibit a person from taking or accepting from another person any loan or deposit or any specified sum above an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account, or accepting payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account or such other electronic mode as may be prescribed; can a criminal court justify cash transaction above an amount of Rs.20,000/- treating it as a “legally enforceable debt” is the important question to be decided in this case. The Union Government is aiming for “Digital India”, and the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India is leading the battle for complete digital transactions by every citizen of this country. Nowadays, we can see digital transactions even in small tea shops, paan shops, etc. In Kerala, even coolie workers accept their wages through digital transactions of Unified Payments Interface(UPI) like Google Pay, PhonePe, Paytm etc. I am of the considered opinion that, when the government of India aims a goal of complete digital transactions by every citizen of this country instead of cash transactions, a court of law cannot turn its face and l
[IND_HC_HCBM010428732008]: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment (e.g., followed, distinguished, overruled). The entry states only a legal principle: "A cheque issued for an unaccounted debt does not constitute a legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act."
Dalmia Cement Ltd. VS Galaxy Trades And Agencies - 2001 0 Supreme(Ker) 37: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The entry states only a legal principle: "The offence under Section 138... The complainant has the option to issue a fresh notice if the drawer claims not to have received the notice."
Krishna Janardhan Bhat VS Dattatraya G. Hegde - 2008 1 Supreme 306: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The entry states only a legal principle, noting it as an "important point": "important point Important principles of legal jurisprudence, namely presumption of innocence... should be delicately balanced."
Cash transactions exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in violation of the Income-Tax Act cannot constitute a legally enforceable debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act, as established by the court's ruling.
The legal enforceability of debt or liability under the NI Act is influenced by the provisions of the Income Tax Act, and unaccounted cash transactions may impact the enforceability of debts.
Violation of Section 269SS of the IT Act does not render a transaction under Section 138 NI Act unenforceable.
Presumption under NI Act ss.118/139 rebuttable by evidence of complainant's lack of financial capacity via cross-examination; no appellate interference with reasonable acquittal; IT Act s.269SS viola....
A cash transaction exceeding Rs. 20,000 does not invalidate a legally enforceable debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act, which presumes a cheque pertains to such a debt upon acknowledgment of sig....
Violation of Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act does not render transactions unenforceable under the Negotiable Instruments Act, as the presumption of liability remains unless effectively rebutted ....
Violations of cash transaction regulations under the Income Tax Act do not render debts legally unenforceable under the Negotiable Instruments 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
