DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2005
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- Company - Cheque dishonoured issued by company - Directors of Company cannot be prosecuted in absence of their name appearing in the array of accused in the complaint...........
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2005
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420-- `Alteration in date and drawer's signature differ' - Cheque dishonoured - Accused can show that alteration in date or signatures are made not because of insufficiency or paucity of funds - If accused shows that in his account there were sufficient funds to clear the amount of cheque at the time of..........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2005
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Cheque issued to lawyer towards professional fee for conducting case - Cheque dishonoured - Liability is legally enforceable...........
KERALA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2005
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Notice - Sent as per registered post at correct address - Received back `unclaimed' - Evidence of Postman that he gave intimation to addressee but inspite of intimation addressee did not receive the notice - Accused did not adduce any evidence to rebut presumption available u/s 114 Evidence Act -..........
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2005
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145-- Provision of S.145 applies to all complaints pending on the date on which the Amending Act came into force - There is nothing in the Amending Act to indicate that the provision is intended to apply only prospectively...........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2005
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- Company - Liability depends not upon holding an office in a company but satisfying the main requirement that he was incharge and responsible for conduct of business of company at the relevant time - A Director not incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the Company is not liable for..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2005
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- Company - Director - Merely being a Director of a company is not sufficient to make him liable - A Director is liable only if he is incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time and there has to be an averment in the complaint to this effect - Without this..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2005
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- Company - Managing Director and Joint Managing Director - By virtue of the office they hold, they are persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and they are covered u/s 141 of the Act...........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2005
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- Company - Signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured - Such person is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and is covered u/s 141 (2) of the Act...........
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2005
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Part payment made after issuance of cheque - Cheque dishonoured - Notice of demand issued pointing out all the details of the liability and the balance amount claimed - Question as to whether demand notice is illegal - Held No - Notice is perfectly legal - If inspite of part payment made if the..........