Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the pendency of proceedings under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 barred a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheque.
Analysis: Section 138 creates a penal liability on dishonour of a cheque issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the offence is complete when the statutory requirements are satisfied. Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, on its language, stays proceedings relating to winding up, execution, distress, appointment of receiver, and suits for recovery of money or enforcement of security against the sick industrial company. The provision was held to be directed to civil recovery and not to criminal prosecution. The wider expression used in section 22(1) was not read to override the specific penal provision in section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Conclusion: Section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not bar or suspend prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Ratio Decidendi: A moratorium on civil recovery proceedings under section 22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 does not extend to a criminal prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which operates as a distinct penal liability.