TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court quashes complaint & summons in cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act</h1> <h3>Harish Kapoor Versus Akansha Gupta</h3> The High Court quashed the complaint and summoning order in a case involving a dispute over cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act in the ... - Issues involved: Dispute over cheque dishonour u/s 138 of NI Act in the context of a marital settlement agreement.Summary:Issue 1: Settlement agreement and cheque dishonourThe petitioner, father-in-law, issued post-dated cheques as part of a settlement agreement with the complainant, his daughter-in-law, in a marital dispute. The complainant lodged a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act when one of the cheques was dishonoured. The trial court summoned the petitioner based on the complaint.Details:The settlement involved the petitioner agreeing to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 2.5 crores and seeking mutual divorce. However, the cheque in question was dishonoured as it was to be encashed upon quashing of the FIR, which had not occurred. The petitioner argued that the cheque was not for any existing debt or liability towards the complainant.Issue 2: Legal liability and enforceabilityThe complainant contended that the petitioner had a liability towards her as per the settlement agreement, making him liable u/s 138 of NI Act. The petitioner argued that he had no legal obligation to pay the amount as the settlement conditions were not met.Details:The complainant claimed that the petitioner's liability was established by the settlement terms and the bail granted to him. However, the court found that the cheque was not issued for any legally enforceable debt or liability towards the complainant.Conclusion:The High Court quashed the complaint and summoning order, stating that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt. The court emphasized that the settlement did not fully materialize, and the petitioner had no legal liability towards the complainant. The petitioner was within his rights to stop the cheque payment as per the settlement terms.Significant Legal Reference:The court referred to the provisions of Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing the need for a legally enforceable debt or liability for the offence to be established.
TaxTMI 
