News Room
Some of the latest important judgements:-
1. There is alarming increase in incidence of criminal in politics- SC issued six mandatory directions : 2020(2)RCR (Criminal)57 SC
2. Yashita sahu vs St of Rajasthan 2020 (1) law herald supreme Court 136
Contact right in addition to visiting rights contact writes are also important for development of child special in cases where both parents live in different states or countries- system of contact if available between party should be video calling unless there are special circumstances to take different view, parent who is denied custody of child should have right to talk to his her child for 5 to 10 minutes everyday.
Contact right in addition to visiting rights contact writes are also important for development of child special in cases where both parents live in different states or countries- system of contact if available between party should be video calling unless there are special circumstances to take different view, parent who is denied custody of child should have right to talk to his her child for 5 to 10 minutes everyday.
3. *MAINTENANCE TO MINOR SONS - LIVING WITH MOTHER - EARNING MOTHER*
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125 - Maintenance to minor sons - Sons living with mother - Earning mother - (i) Maintenance by father cannot be denied merely because mother is employed; (ii) Mere fact that mother is earning more that salary of father cannot absolve father of his responsibility to maintain his minor sons; (iii) Even if it is found that mother is earning and sons are staying with their mother is not a sufficient reason for father to avoid his responsibility and duty to maintain his minor sons; (iv) it would be incorrect to hold that both the parents are equally responsible for expenses of the child; (v) No doubt, mother, if she is earning, should also contribute towards the expenses of a child but expenses cannot be divided equally between the two; (vi) Grant of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to each of the sons, considering salary of father as Rs.52,000/- per month, upheld. (2020(1) Criminal Court Cases 795 (P&H)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.125 - Maintenance to minor sons - Sons living with mother - Earning mother - (i) Maintenance by father cannot be denied merely because mother is employed; (ii) Mere fact that mother is earning more that salary of father cannot absolve father of his responsibility to maintain his minor sons; (iii) Even if it is found that mother is earning and sons are staying with their mother is not a sufficient reason for father to avoid his responsibility and duty to maintain his minor sons; (iv) it would be incorrect to hold that both the parents are equally responsible for expenses of the child; (v) No doubt, mother, if she is earning, should also contribute towards the expenses of a child but expenses cannot be divided equally between the two; (vi) Grant of maintenance of Rs.6,000/- per month to each of the sons, considering salary of father as Rs.52,000/- per month, upheld. (2020(1) Criminal Court Cases 795 (P&H)
4.
10 MAJOR CASE LAWS
IN CHEQUE DISHONOURED CASES
The cheque should have been drawn by the drawer on an account maintained by him. The cheque should have been returned or dishonoured because of insufficient funds in the drawer's account. The cheque is issued towards discharge of a debt or legal liability..
1. Meter and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta
Sc laid down and iterated the principles and guidelines that are usually followed in cases pertaining to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.The object of introducing Section 138 and other such provisions, is to enhance the acceptability of cheques in the settlement of liabilities. The offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is primarily related to a civil wrong and the Amendment [The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002] of 2002 specifically made it compoundable.
2. Bhaskaran Nair v. Abdul Kareem [2006 (4) KLT 48]
The Kerala High Court held that the defence that a signed blank cheque was handed over by an account holder is intrinsically suspicious one and must be appreciated with great care and caution. No account holder is expected to deal with a cheque in such a casual, careless, irresponsible and indifferent manner and such a defence is impossible.
3. Moideen v. Johny [2006 (3) KLT SN 62]
The Kerala High Court held that by issuing a signed blank cheque the drawer conveys an implied authority to fill up the cheque and present the same for encashment.
4. Lillykutty v. Lawrance [2003 (3) KLT 721]
The Kerala High Court held that the mere fact that the payee’s name and amount shown are not in the hand writing of the drawer does not invalidate the cheque. No law provides that body of the cheque has to be written by drawer only in his own handwriting. What is material is the signature of the drawer only and not the body of the instrument.
5. I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer [2002 (3) KLT 218 (SC)]
The Apex Court held that a cheque given as security for the liability of the accused or for the liability of any person would also fall under the mischief of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
6. Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore [AIR 2011 SC 2566]
The Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is almost in the nature of civil wrong which has been given criminal overtone, and imposition of fine payable as compensation is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
7. M/S. Mandvi Co-Op Bank Ltd vs Nimesh B.Thakore on 11 January, 2010
Apex court took notice of the fact that cases under section 138 of the Act have been coming in such great multitude that even the introduction of such radical measures to make the trial procedure simplified and speedy has been of little help and cases of dishonoured cheques continue to pile up giving rise to an unbearable burden on the criminal court system.
8. Pawan Kumar Ralli vs. Maninder Singh Narula [(2014) 15 SCC 245]
The High Court was not right in quashing the complaint merely on the ground that complaint is barred by limitation, that too a plea which was taken for the first time before the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding the issue of limitation.
9. Vijayan v. Baby [2011(4) KLT 355]
The Supreme Court held that the direction to pay the compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of the dishonor of the cheque should be practical and realistic. So, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the compensatory aspect of remedy should be given much priority over punitive aspect.
10. Smt.P. Vijaya Laxmi vs Smt. S.P. Sravana And Another on 27 October, 2017
As regards the remedy of appeal available to complainants against orders of acquittal in cases pertaining to any other offense, it may be noted that the right of appeal given to victims under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code is a general remedy provided to all such victims. ..
10 MAJOR CASE LAWS
IN CHEQUE DISHONOURED CASES
The cheque should have been drawn by the drawer on an account maintained by him. The cheque should have been returned or dishonoured because of insufficient funds in the drawer's account. The cheque is issued towards discharge of a debt or legal liability..
1. Meter and Instruments Private Limited v. Kanchan Mehta
Sc laid down and iterated the principles and guidelines that are usually followed in cases pertaining to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.The object of introducing Section 138 and other such provisions, is to enhance the acceptability of cheques in the settlement of liabilities. The offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 is primarily related to a civil wrong and the Amendment [The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002] of 2002 specifically made it compoundable.
2. Bhaskaran Nair v. Abdul Kareem [2006 (4) KLT 48]
The Kerala High Court held that the defence that a signed blank cheque was handed over by an account holder is intrinsically suspicious one and must be appreciated with great care and caution. No account holder is expected to deal with a cheque in such a casual, careless, irresponsible and indifferent manner and such a defence is impossible.
3. Moideen v. Johny [2006 (3) KLT SN 62]
The Kerala High Court held that by issuing a signed blank cheque the drawer conveys an implied authority to fill up the cheque and present the same for encashment.
4. Lillykutty v. Lawrance [2003 (3) KLT 721]
The Kerala High Court held that the mere fact that the payee’s name and amount shown are not in the hand writing of the drawer does not invalidate the cheque. No law provides that body of the cheque has to be written by drawer only in his own handwriting. What is material is the signature of the drawer only and not the body of the instrument.
5. I.C.D.S. Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer [2002 (3) KLT 218 (SC)]
The Apex Court held that a cheque given as security for the liability of the accused or for the liability of any person would also fall under the mischief of offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
6. Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore [AIR 2011 SC 2566]
The Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is almost in the nature of civil wrong which has been given criminal overtone, and imposition of fine payable as compensation is sufficient to meet the ends of justice.
7. M/S. Mandvi Co-Op Bank Ltd vs Nimesh B.Thakore on 11 January, 2010
Apex court took notice of the fact that cases under section 138 of the Act have been coming in such great multitude that even the introduction of such radical measures to make the trial procedure simplified and speedy has been of little help and cases of dishonoured cheques continue to pile up giving rise to an unbearable burden on the criminal court system.
8. Pawan Kumar Ralli vs. Maninder Singh Narula [(2014) 15 SCC 245]
The High Court was not right in quashing the complaint merely on the ground that complaint is barred by limitation, that too a plea which was taken for the first time before the High Court. On the other hand, the High Court ought to have remanded the matter to the Trial Court for deciding the issue of limitation.
9. Vijayan v. Baby [2011(4) KLT 355]
The Supreme Court held that the direction to pay the compensation by way of restitution in regard to the loss on account of the dishonor of the cheque should be practical and realistic. So, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, the compensatory aspect of remedy should be given much priority over punitive aspect.
10. Smt.P. Vijaya Laxmi vs Smt. S.P. Sravana And Another on 27 October, 2017
As regards the remedy of appeal available to complainants against orders of acquittal in cases pertaining to any other offense, it may be noted that the right of appeal given to victims under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code is a general remedy provided to all such victims. ..
