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 application to quash complaint under Section 138, emphasizes trial court's jurisdiction</h1> <h3>Urmi Dairy Enterprise Versus State of Gujarat</h3> Urmi Dairy Enterprise Versus State of Gujarat - TMI Issues Involved:1. Quashing of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.2. Legality of the cheque issued as 'security'.3. Disputed facts regarding the lease agreement and possession of Kvory plant.Detailed Analysis:1. Quashing of the Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act:The applicant sought to quash the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, arguing that the cheque in question was issued only as security and not for the discharge of any debt or liability. The court, however, emphasized that the question of whether a cheque represents a discharge of an existing enforceable debt or liability is a matter of fact that needs to be determined during the trial. The court cited several precedents, including Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited and Indus Airways Private Limited v. Magnum Aviation Private Limited, to highlight that the nature of the transaction determines the applicability of Section 138.2. Legality of the Cheque Issued as 'Security':The applicant argued that the cheque was given only for security purposes and not for the discharge of any debt. The court referred to the judgment in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao, where it was held that if on the date of the cheque, the liability or debt exists or the amount has become legally recoverable, Section 138 is attracted. The court noted that whether the cheque was issued as security or for the discharge of a debt is a factual question that should be resolved during the trial.3. Disputed Facts Regarding the Lease Agreement and Possession of Kvory Plant:The applicant raised several factual disputes, including the non-production of the lease agreement, the alleged snatching of possession of the Kvory plant, and the claim of incurred expenses and losses. The court held that these are disputed questions of fact that can only be resolved through evidence presented during the trial. The court emphasized that it is not appropriate to quash the complaint under Section 482 of the CrPC based on disputed facts that require thorough examination during the trial.Conclusion:The court dismissed the application to quash the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, emphasizing that the issues raised by the applicant involve disputed questions of fact that need to be resolved during the trial. The court reiterated that the High Court should not interfere with the cognizance of the complaints taken by the trial court and that the applicant is at liberty to raise all available contentions before the trial court. The court did not delve into the merits of the matter but focused on the aspect of its entertainability for quashing the complaint.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
