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 dismisses Criminal Appeals challenging acquittal under Negotiable Instruments Act</h1> <h3>Jayaram Finance and Ors. Versus Jayaprakash</h3> The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeals challenging the acquittal of the Respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The ... - Issues involved: Appeal against acquittal u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Summary:1. The Appellant filed Criminal Appeals against the acquittal of the Respondent u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Additional District Judge. The impugned cheques were dishonored, leading to the complaint being filed. The Trial Court convicted the Respondent, but the Additional District Judge acquitted him, leading to the present Appeals. 2. The Appellant claimed to be the holder in due course of the cheques endorsed by Gnanavel, which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Respondent failed to pay, leading to the complaint.3. The Trial Court convicted the Respondent, but the Additional District Judge acquitted him. The Appellant challenged this decision in the present Appeals.4. The High Court heard arguments from both sides and reviewed the evidence.5. The Appellant argued that the endorsement on the cheques by Gnanavel gave rise to the cause of action u/s 138 of the NI Act.6. The Respondent's Counsel contended that the Appellant was not a holder in due course as there was no proper endorsement as required by law. The endorsement was deemed insufficient.7. The Respondent's Counsel cited previous cases in support of their argument.8. The High Court noted that there was no proper endorsement as required by law, and without it, the Appellant could not be considered a holder in due course.9. The Respondent disputed the liability and privity of contract with the Appellant, which was not proven by the Appellant. The lack of proper endorsement further weakened the Appellant's case.10. Despite the Respondent's denial of liability, the Appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the transfer of consideration. The absence of proper endorsement was a crucial factor.11. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the lower court's decision to acquit the Respondent. The Criminal Appeals were dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
