IV (2011) BC 505 (SC)

Revision/Appeal —Right to file is not absolute but statutory, which can be circumscribed by conditions in grant made by statute.

IV (2011) BC 495 (Madras HC) 495

Dishonour of Cheque —Territorial Jurisdiction—Presentation of cheque and dishonour of cheque by drawee Bank may be referred to as commencement of offence, followed by statutory notice demanding payment and giving opportunity to drawee to avoid criminal prosecution—On receipt of such notice and on failure to make payment, offence is completed.

IV (2011) BC 489 (Bombay HC) (DB)

Contract —Tender—‘Public Purpose’—Public contract given by Public Authority must be transparent, free from malice and serve public purpose.

IV (2011) BC 481 (Delhi HC)

Dishonour of Cheque —Joint Signatories—Cheques are signed by only one of the joint signatories—It does not bear signature of second joint signatory—Instruments do not qualify definition of valid cheque which could be acted upon by Bank in terms of instructions regarding mode of operation of Bank account.

IV (2011) BC 475 (Kerala HC)

Dishonour of Cheque —Absence of word “execution” in Section 138 is of no consequence—It is not an excuse not to prove execution/drawing in a prosecution under Section 138 of Act.

IV (2011) BC 475 (Kerala HC)

Dishonour of Cheque —Admission of signature in a cheque leaf alone will not constitute admission of execution of cheque.

IV (2011) BC 475 (Kerala HC)

Dishonour of Cheque —Execution—Mere fact that cheque produced in Court came from complainant’s possession alone, not sufficient to prove execution, though it may be one of the circumstances.

IV (2011) BC 475 (Kerala HC)

Dishonour of Cheque —Mere production of cheque or marking same as an exhibit in case will not prove that cheque is drawn by accused—Factum of drawing or exe-cution of cheque to be proved by evidence, direct or circumstantial, admissible in law.

IV (2011) BC 475 (Kerala HC)

Dishonour of Cheque —Offence—The only overt act which makes a person liable for offence under Section 138 is “drawing” of cheque by him.

IV (2011) BC 466 (P&H HC)

Administration of Justice —To decide lis between parties, Court should make every endeavour by permitting both parties to produce entire evidence in their possession.

IV (2011) BC 457 (Delhi HC) 457

SICA —Suspension of legal proceedings—Object—Is essentially to protect the sick companies against the proceedings for winding up or for execution or distress or for enforcement of any security or guarantee against the said company on account of the fact that the company in question is a sick company and is already under consideration of an appropriate Forum that is BIFR or AAIFR as to whether it be restored back to its financial health so as to make it a viable functioning unit or whether it should be wound up for the good.

IV (2011) BC 436 (Delhi HC)

Dishonour of Cheque —Presumption under said section is a rebuttable presumption—Burden lies on accused to prove that he had no liability on date of issue of the cheque—It is essential to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and ingredients of offence should be satisfied.

IV (2011) BC 422 (Kerala HC) (DB)

Territorial Jurisdiction —Objection regarding territorial jurisdiction must be raised before commencement of trial, i.e., before actual adducing of evidence by examination of witnesses in Court.

IV (2011) BC 422 (Kerala HC) (DB)

Trial —Commences in civil cases after issues are framed—Criminal trial starts when charge is framed and plea is recorded.

IV (2011) BC 422 (Kerala HC) (DB)

Trial —Even where statute employs the expression ‘trial’—It does not necessarily mean formal raising of charges or raising of issues.

IV (2011) BC 413 (Madras HC)

Dishonour of Cheque —Amendment of complaint i.e. cheque Number—Once complaint is presented into Court, it is the duty of complainant to ensure that all particulars of complaint are correct and perfect—He has to face consequences of defects or wrongs contained therein.

IV (2011) BC 273 (Ori. HC) (DB) 273

Tenders —Principle of awarding contract to lowest tenderer applies when all things are equal.

IV (2011) BC 273 (Ori. HC) (DB) 273

Tenders —Though highest tenderer can claim no right to have his tender accepted, there being a power while inviting tenders to reject all the tenders.

I (2011) BC 251 (SC)
Securities—No distinction between listed securities and unlisted securities—Circular will apply to securities which are not listed on Stock Exchange.

I (2011) BC 221(P&H HC) (DB)
Jurisdiction —Company Judge has jurisdiction to decide enforcement of One Time Settlement Scheme/Agreement.

I (2011) BC 214 (Bom. HC) (DB)
Writ Jurisdiction—Power under Article 226 of Constitution can be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases where secured creditor failed to abide by and follow legal provision.

I (2011) BC 210 (Delhi HC)
Dishonour of Cheque—Jurisdiction—Cheque has to be presented on drawer’s Bank where account has been maintained to attract criminal liability.

I (2011) BC 178 (SC)
Non Performing Assets—Means an asset or account receivable of a borrower, which has been classified by banks or financial institutions in terms of RBI guidelines as substandard, doubtful, etc.

I (2011) BC 99 (Gujarat HC) (DB)
Jurisdiction —Suit for declaration and injunction with regard to suit properties—DRT has no jurisdiction, power and authority to entertain and decide said issue either at the instance of Bank or petitioners.

I (2011) BC 82(Bombay HC)
Jurisdiction—Civil Court could not assume jurisdiction to decide a question which squarely fell for decision of DRT and in respect of which jurisdiction of Civil Court was expressly barred under Section 34 of SRFAESI Act.

I (2011) BC 46 (Delhi HC)
SEBI— Not open to SEBI to revert to computing fee liability as a percentage of gross turnover in terms of Clause (b) of regulations.

I (2011) BC 37 (DRAT—Delhi)
Transfer of Property—If there are successive transfers of same property, later transfer is subject to prior transfer.

I (2011) BC 34 (DRAT—Delhi)
Sitting hours of Tribunal—DRT-III must hold the Court from 10:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.—To work after 5:00 pm Trial Court has to seek consent of both the parties.

I (2011) BC 31(DRAT—Delhi)
Delay and Laches—Tribunal is neither recovery agent of Bank nor agent of borrower yet it is duty of Tribunals established under RDDBFI Act and SRFAESI Act to dispose of such like cases expeditiously for recovery of amount failing which object and scheme of both acts shall stand defeated.

I (2011) BC 29 (Delhi HC)
Dishonour of Cheque —Venue of inquiry or trial of case is primarily to be determined by averments or charge-sheet where case is filed.

I (2011) BC 26 (Patna HC)
Recovery of Debt—Bank cannot refuse to enter into reschedulement on ground that account had become NPA.

I (2011) BC 21 (Delhi HC)
Dishonour of Cheque —Post-dated cheque issued at time of placing order is not a cheque against liability.

I (2011) BC 11 (Cal. HC) (DB)
Principles of Law—When regulation framed under law provides for penal measure to achieve same object, it is not simply permissible under law to frame Scheme in conflict with existing legal provision.

IV (2010) BC 581(AP HC) (DB)
Auction—Mere fact that property did not fetch proper market value would not be sufficient to quash and set aside auction sale, already confirmed.

IV (2010) BC 707(SC)
Contempt of Court—Courts have to strictly construe provisions of Section 3(b) of Contempt of Courts Act in order to find person guilty of having committed contempt of Court.

IV (2010) BC 97 (DRAT—Delhi) (DRAT)
Contract—Liability of surety co-extensive with that of principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by contract.

IV (2010) BC 1 (P&H HC)
Dishonour of Cheque—Blank cheque—Filling up of blanks in a cheque by itself would not amount to forgery.

IV (2010) BC 178 (Kerala HC)
Blank cheque—Presumption—Admission of signature in a blank cheque is not admission of execution of cheque.

IV (2010) BC 240 (Delhi HC)
Cheque not being presented at proper branch of Bank of drawer would not attract offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

IV (2010) BC 50 (P&H HC
Notice—Charges shown separately cannot held to be invalid on account of claim of incidental charges.

IV (2010) BC 335 (Kerala HC)
Notice—Prosecution of petitioner for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is not sustainable in absence of notice in writing served on petitioner demanding amount.

IV (2010) BC 9 (P&H HC)
Offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act is compoundable.

IV (2010) BC 214 (Delhi HC)
Petitioner being one of the partners of firm, not vicariously liable for offence under Section 138 of Act with regard to cheques issued by one of the partners in his individual capacity from his personal account.

IV (2010 BC 716 (Orissa HC)
Proceeding under Section 138 of N.I. Act cannot be maintained in absence of notice as contemplated under Section 138(b) of Act.

IV (2010) BC 392 (Orissa HC)
Single Trial—It is not necessary to start two separate complaints for two cases of dishonour of cheques.

IV (2010) BC 224 (Delhi HC
Stopping payment of cheques after receiving goods from respondent would not exonerate petitioners of their liability under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

IV (DRAT—Delhi) (DRAT) 11
Evidence—Documentary evidence will always get preponderance over oral evidence because it is well known action of law that men may tell lies but documents cannot.

IV (2010) BC 453 (Gauhati HC)
Judicial Review—Writ Court exercising its power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution cannot sit on appeal over findings arrived at by fact finding authority unless such findings are shown to be perverse or they are not based on any evidence at all.

IV (2010)BC 237 (Kerala HC)
Legal Maxim—“Actus Curiae neminem gravabit”—An act of Court shall prejudice no man.

IV (2010) BC 27 (Madras HC)
“Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probation”—Burden of proof lies upon him who asserts and not upon him who denies.

IV (2010) BC 494 (Delhi HC)
Negotiable Instruments Act—Offence by Company—When law has made BoD responsible for conduct of business as a body of company, each and every Director has to be considered incharge of responsibility for conduct of business and can be summoned by Court.

IV (2010) BC 133 (DRAT—Delhi) (DRAT)
Practice and Procedure—Proceedings under SRFAESI and RDDBFI Act can go together.

IV (2010) BC 581 (AP HC) (DB)
Precedent—All rules of procedure are handmaid of justice.

IV (2010) BC 285 (Bombay HC) (DB)
Not to be interpreted like a statute—Ratio has to be culled out from facts and what was in issue—What has to be considered is ratio of judgment.

IV (2010) BC 625 (Delhi HC) (DB)
Principles of Law—Courts of law can neither substitute legal provisions nor legislate.

IV (2010) BC 369 (Orissa HC)
Recall—Section 311, Cr.P.C. is couched in widest possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with regard to stage at which powers of Court should be exercised or manner in which it should be exercised.

IV (2010) BC 189 (AP HC) (DB)
Recovery Agents—They are required to know not only basic principles relating to law of contract but relevant principles governing recovery of possession and sale of immovable assets.

IV (2010) BC 189 (AP HC) (DB)
Recovery of Debt Amount—A borrower cannot be subjected to an unduly harsh expenditure—Expression ‘properly incurred expense’ has got to be understood in that context.

IV (2010) BC 96 (DRAT—Delhi) (DRAT)
Introducer of account is not liable for the act and conduct of principal debtors, but action can be initiated against him as per law—Appellant is not liable for any amount in respect of decree passed by DRT.

IV (2010) BC 33 (DRAT—Delhi) (DRAT)
RDDBFI—Tribunals established under Act are to be guided by principles of natural justice.

IV (2010) BC 5 (DRAT—Delhi) (DRAT)
Sale of Properties—Acceptance of sale amount is not equivalent to confirmation of sale.

IV (2010) BC 396 (Bombay HC) (DB)
SRFAESI—Act does not confer any power on District Magistrate to transform himself into Court of law with powers to adjudicate on validity of instrument by which asset is secured.

IV (2010) BC 40 (DRAT—Delhi) (DRAT)
Auction—Sale of property—Inadequacy of price is no ground for setting aside sale.

IV (2010) BC 87 (Chhattisgarh HC)
Petitioner’s account not classified as NPA which is sine qua non to issue notice under Section 13(2) of Act.

IV (2010) BC 328 (Madras HC) (DB)
Petitioner sought stay of proceedings in writ petition—Conditional order passed by this Court not complied with by petitioner—Huge sums of public money due from defaulters of Banks will have serious repercussions directly on lending capacity of Banks and economy of nation as a whole.

IV (2010) BC 622 (Orissa HC)
Statement of accused—Magistrate had jurisdiction to dispense with examination of accused under Section 313 of Code.

IV (2010) BC 200 (Kerala HC) (DB)
Tender—There is no legal right for a tenderer to claim relaxation of mandatory condition in notification stipulating the furnishing of Earnest Money Deposit, by adjustment against amounts which are claimed to be due to contractor.

IV (2010) BC 612 (Madras HC) (DB)
Writ Jurisdiction—Disputed question of fact cannot be determined in writ petition.