Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the appellant Court was right in rejecting the application of the accused seeking opinion of the handwriting expert in Cheque Dishonour case.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on validity of AIBE; ex-communication of Dawoodi Bohras; decriminalisation of adultery; permissibility of DNA test of children to prove allegations of adultery; and more. It also covers reports on the career trajectory & important decisions of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta and the newly appointed 7 judges of the Supreme Court; Explainers on important law points; and Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of February.
With 1263 judgments delivered; three Chief Justices of India taking turns to lead the judiciary; a number of judges retiring and a
Supreme Court: In the case where the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the offence under Section 138 of the
“Quashing of a complaint is a serious matter. Complaint cannot be quashed for the asking. For quashing of a complaint, it must be shown that no offence is made out at all against the Director or Partner.”
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petitions, the question that came up before that Court
Karnataka High Court: M. Nagarprasanna J. allowed a petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Atul Sreedharan, J. allowed a petition which was filed for quashing of Crime which was registered for an
The bench of Ashok Bhushan* and KM Joseph, JJ, in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, lucidly summarized the following principles relating to the
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of the term ‘debt or any other liability’ under Section 138 of the NI Act, the bench
“A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance.”
Supreme Court: Explaining the law relating to vicarious liability of the Directors of a company under Sections 138 and 141 of the
The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint.
Delhi High Court: V. Kameswar Rao, J., refused to interfere with the award passed by the Arbitrator and dismissed a petition filed under
Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
Supreme Court: Taking suo motu cognizance of the issue relating to the expeditious trial of cases under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Supreme Court: In the case where the question as to how proceedings for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments