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>Court dismisses petition seeking quashment of complaint under Section 138</h1> <h3>Abdul Gani Parray Versus J & K State Industrial Development Corporation</h3> Abdul Gani Parray Versus J & K State Industrial Development Corporation - TMI Issues:1. Quashment of complaint and order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.2. Interpretation of Section 138 regarding cheque dishonour and liability.3. Application for discharge by accused and rejection by Trial Magistrate.4. Legal position on cheque cancellation and subsequent presentation.Analysis:1. The petitioner sought quashment of a complaint and order under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, claiming that informing the payee to wait for funds before presenting the cheque should not attract Section 138. The Trial Magistrate rejected the accused's discharge application, leading to the petition.2. The accused argued that requesting cheque cancellation before presentation absolves liability under Section 138. The Trial Magistrate's rejection was based on the accused's belated application and failure to appreciate the complainant's notice of intimation, leading to the petition challenging the order.3. The accused's application for discharge was contested as belated by the respondents, claiming it aimed to delay the trial. The Government Advocate argued that mere cheque cancellation request does not absolve the drawer from Section 138 liability, leading to the dispute.4. The judgment highlighted the legal position on cheque dishonour and liability under Section 138, citing relevant case laws. The court emphasized that informing the payee to cancel the cheque before presentation does not negate the offence under Section 138, dismissing the petition due to reliance on overruled judgments.5. The court expressed concern over the counsel's reliance on outdated judgments without verifying their legal standing, warning against presenting incorrect legal positions. The petition was dismissed, emphasizing the need for diligent legal research and preparation by counsels to avoid misinterpretation of the law.6. The judgment concluded by dismissing the petition, directing parties to bear their own costs, and instructing the trial court to be informed of the order. The decision was based on the accused's misconceived argument regarding cheque cancellation and liability under Section 138.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
