Exponente de cementación “m” - LCULO DE LA POROSIDAD

EVALUACIÓN DE FORMACIONES

LCULO DE LA POROSIDAD

4.4 Exponente de cementación “m”

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Cheque issued in 2003 whereas petitioner ceased to be Director of Company in 1994 - Certified copy of Form-32 issued by Registrar of Companies is a conclusive proof that petitioner resigned in 1994 - Petitioner was not Director at the material time - Proceedings against petitioner,

quashed . (Dr.(Mrs.) Sarla Kumar Vs Srei International Finance Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 065 (DELHI)

#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine and/or compensation - Imposition of fine and/or compensation must be considered having regard to the relevant factors in mind as envisaged u/s 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (P.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Shankar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.C.)

#25: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Interest - Court can ascertain the loss which the complainant would suffer/has suffered on account of the delay in payment and appropriate rate of interest can be directed to be paid, consistent with the rate of interest payable by the nationalised banks - In the instant case interest at the rate of 8% per annum allowed. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923

#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Two cheque of the value of Rs.55, 500/- - Fine imposed Rs.2500/- in each case without any direction to pay amount due on cheques bounced - Complainant should at least be compensated with the amount due by the accused on the cheque issued by him - That should be the rule unless there are good reasons to depart from the same - Sentence imposed set aside and case remanded with a direction to pass appropriate sentence in accordance with law. (Shri Basavraj

D.Allayyanvar Vs Shri Santosh Kapadi), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 437 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2007 NOC 1358 (BOMBAY) : 2007 CRILJ 2220 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 314 : 2007 ALLMR(CR() 1063 : 2007(1) BOMCR (CRI) 1028

#2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes - Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability - Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted with. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Bhave & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Vicarious liability - Director who negotiated for obtaining financial assistance on behalf of the Company cannot be held vicariously liable - It does not give rise to an inference that he was responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company - Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Vicarious liability - It must be pleaded that accused was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595

#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Vicarious liability - Must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595

#6: DELHI HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Undelivered letter or A.D. not received back - Allowance of period of service of notice which at least should be a week is admissible in this regard - Period to file complaint is thus extended to a further period of a week. (ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Prafull Chandra), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 731 (DELHI)

#7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Son of deceased partner - Cannot be impleaded as an accused merely for the reason that he happens to be the son of deceased partner. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595

#8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Holder in due course - Cheque payable to bearer - Respondent is deemed to be holder in due course of cheque - Has locus to file complaint on dishonour of cheque. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595

#9: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act, Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala & Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA)

#10: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Unless amount is claimable in civil suit, direction u/s 357(1) or S.357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of

compensation cannot be issued. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 30-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - When dishonour of cheque takes place, certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3)

CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923

#12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - High Court of one State cannot quash criminal proceedings pending in a Court within jurisdiction of another High Court. (Tripti Vyas Vs M/s Ahlers India Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 469 (RAJASTHAN)

#13: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Interest - Direction can be issued u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of interest. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine/or compensation - Power of court to impose fine may or may not be limited but power to award compensation is not - Consideration for payment of compensation is somewhat different from payment of fine. (P.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Shankar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.C.)

#15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards repayment of loan - Money lender - Not possible to lend money without any document - Date of lending money not mentioned in complaint and notice - Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced - Presumption u/s 139 is not available - Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present

proceedings instituted by him to realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable - Accused acquitted. (M.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR.) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - - Cheque drawn for

discharge of time-barred liability - Dishonour of cheque will fall within the sweep of S.138 of the Act. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161

#17: KERALA HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque of Rs.3 lacs - Accused convicted and sentenced till rising of Court - Accused liable to pay compensation of Rs.3.50 lacs and in default to undergo two months S.I. - Compensation amount if realised payable to

complainant. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161

#18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused borrowed money and issued two cheques - Two options were available to complainant to either get the cheques encashed or in the alternative to get plot of 100 square yards - Subsequent to the bouncing of cheques

complainant did not avail of second option - Held, as there was contingent alternative available to complainant to get worth of his money in terms of real estate which was not availed, no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out. (Geeta Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque not presented in Bank for encashment within six months from the date on which it was drawn - No offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out. (Geeta Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65

#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.)

#21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability - Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon - Burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.)

#22: DELHI HIGH COURT

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred complaint - Condonation of delay - First notice of application be issued to the other side without taking cognizance of complaint - Application be decided after hearing the parties. (Prashant Goel Vs State & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 028 (DELHI)

#23: DELHI HIGH COURT

065 (DELHI)

#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

#25: KERALA HIGH COURT

In document INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO NACIONAL (página 79-83)