Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Conviction upheld for dishonoured cheques: Importance of notice service & compensation vs fine clarified.</h1> <h3>R. Vijayan Versus Baby</h3> R. Vijayan Versus Baby - 2012 AIR 528, 2012 (14) SCR 712, 2012 (1) SCC 260, 2011 (13) JT 300, 2011 (11) SCALE 550 Issues Involved:1. Service of notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Imposition of fine versus compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Harmonious interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 29 and 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.4. The role of fine and compensation in cases of cheque dishonour.5. Procedural improvements and legislative recommendations for handling cheque dishonour cases.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Service of Notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:The complainant issued a notice demanding payment after the cheque was dishonoured. The First Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused, stating that the complainant failed to prove service of the notice as the postman was not examined. The High Court reversed this, holding that service of notice was duly proved and restored the conviction.2. Imposition of Fine versus Compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The Magistrate sentenced the accused to a fine of Rs. 2000/- and compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. The High Court restored the fine but not the compensation, citing that compensation under Section 357(3) could not coexist with a fine. Section 357(3) allows compensation only when no fine is imposed. This interpretation was supported by precedents like State of Punjab v. Gurmej Singh and Sivasuriyan v. Thangavelu.3. Harmonious Interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 29 and 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:The appellant argued for a harmonious reading of Section 138 of the Act with Sections 29 and 357 of the Code to allow compensation for the loss due to dishonour. However, the Court noted that Section 357(3) is clear that compensation cannot be awarded if a fine is imposed. The maximum fine a First Class Magistrate could impose at the time was Rs. 5,000/-, insufficient to cover the compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.4. The Role of Fine and Compensation in Cases of Cheque Dishonour:The Court acknowledged the difficulty in balancing fine and compensation. It noted that subsequent amendments (Section 143 of the Act) allowed Magistrates to impose fines exceeding Rs. 5,000/-. The Court emphasized that the primary aim of Section 138 is both punitive and compensatory, ensuring the complainant receives the cheque amount as compensation.5. Procedural Improvements and Legislative Recommendations for Handling Cheque Dishonour Cases:The Court highlighted the need for uniformity in awarding compensation and suggested legislative amendments to ensure compensation covers the cheque amount and reasonable interest. It referred to guidelines from Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. to encourage early compounding of cases. The Court proposed that uniform compensation should be awarded in all cases of conviction to avoid inconsistencies and ensure the credibility of cheques.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was upheld. The Court appreciated the assistance of the Amicus Curiae and suggested legislative changes to improve the handling of cheque dishonour cases, emphasizing the need for uniformity and consistency in awarding compensation.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found