Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
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

        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>Magistrate Can Issue Process Without Oath Examination in Cheque Dishonour Cases with Affidavit Support.</h1> <h3>Rajesh Bhalchandra Chalke Versus State of Maharashtra and M/s Emco Dynatorq Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Emco Lenze Pvt. Ltd.), Thane, Nikhil Vasantlal Merchant, Manepanda Joyappa Subbaiah and Ashok Kumar Ram Gopal Doda Versus The State of Maharashtra and Global Trade Finance Ltd., Mumbai</h3> Rajesh Bhalchandra Chalke Versus State of Maharashtra and M/s Emco Dynatorq Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Emco Lenze Pvt. Ltd.), Thane, Nikhil Vasantlal ... Issues Involved:1. Interpretation of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in conjunction with Sections 118, 138, 139, 142, 143, and 146, and its interplay with Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Whether a Magistrate is required to examine the complainant on oath before issuing process under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, despite the affidavit verification.3. The impact of the non obstante clause in Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the requirement under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.4. The legislative intent behind the amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act, particularly the introduction of Sections 143 to 147.Detailed Analysis:1. Interpretation of Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and its interplay with Section 200 of the CrPC:The primary question addressed was whether Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which allows evidence on affidavit, overrides the requirement under Section 200 of the CrPC for a Magistrate to examine the complainant on oath before issuing process. The court noted that Section 145 begins with a non obstante clause, indicating that it prevails over the provisions of the CrPC. Therefore, the affidavit submitted by the complainant can be considered sufficient for the Magistrate to issue process without the need for oral examination.2. Requirement of examining the complainant on oath before issuing process:The court observed that the legislative intent behind Section 145 was to simplify and expedite the procedure for handling complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court concluded that the Magistrate is not obliged to examine the complainant on oath if the complaint is supported by an affidavit and relevant documents. The Magistrate has the discretion to issue process based on the affidavit unless further examination is deemed necessary.3. Impact of the non obstante clause in Section 145:The non obstante clause in Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act indicates that it overrides Section 200 of the CrPC. The court emphasized that the legislative intent was to dispense with the preliminary evidence stage, which includes the personal examination of the complainant, to expedite the process. This interpretation aligns with the objective of reducing the pendency of cheque dishonour cases and ensuring swift justice.4. Legislative intent behind the amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act:The court referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the Amending Act 55 of 2002, which highlighted the need to address the large pendency of cheque dishonour cases and expedite their disposal. The amendments, including the introduction of Sections 143 to 147, were aimed at simplifying the procedure and giving it an overriding effect over the CrPC to achieve quicker resolution of such cases.Conclusion:The court concluded that for issuing process under Section 200 of the CrPC, the Magistrate can rely on the affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant on oath unless deemed necessary. The decision of the Division Bench in Maharaja Developers' case and the Single Judge in Amarnath Baijnath Gupta's case, which held otherwise, were overruled. The judgment emphasized that the amendments in the Negotiable Instruments Act were intended to streamline the process and reduce delays in cheque dishonour cases.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found