Q: Elaborate the citation ' Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan V. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Respondent ' ?

Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan V. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. Respondent(s) on 26th April,  2022.

In this case, the company AAT Academy issued its shares to Ratish Babu and later on company agreed to take its shares back and issued cheque to Ratish Babu. The cheques got bounced and Ratish Babu sent notice to company and since the company did not pay the amount in 15 days, the case under section 138 of NI was filed against the company.  The company told that the Section 138 of NI must have legal debt in accordance with section 139 of NI act and it is not the legal debt of company to sell shares to anyone. 
The honourable Supreme court considered the case of  M/s M.M.T.C Ltd and Anrs Vs M/s Medchl Ltd and Pharma(P) Ltd & Anr. (2001), and according to it , the provision  of section 139 of negotiable instrument act will be considered at the stage of trial and not at pre-trial stage in which summon was issued .
The honourable Supreme Court held that the High Court will not interfere and quashed the matters in pre-trial stage.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: What is the significance of issuing account payee cheque?

Ans: While issuing the cheque, a drawer should draw two parallel lines on its left side and should write 'account only' in between them. By doing this, the cheque becomes an account payee cheque and the payment will be made only in the bank account of the payee. In case of any type of fraud, the payee can be traced. Having the above- mentioned precautions, a drawer can be avoided from fraud to a great extent.
Read more

Q: How would section 208, 209 and 210 of IPC be implemented in dishonour of cheque ?

Ans: A and B collude together and A issues the cheque for X Amount, which gets dishonored.  B files the complaint under S.138, and without proving the liability gets the benefit of presumption under S.139, now both A and B enact the drama of compounding under S.147 of NI Act, matter closed, but in principle A has violated IPC S.208 and S.210 and B has violated IPC S.209. So, if rightly B is asked to prove the entitlement to become the holder, before presumption can be granted to him, surely he would fail and lawfully both A and B can be prosecuted under IPC S.208, S.209 and S.210 if required.
Read more

Q: What are the other illustrations of cheating?

Ans: Illustrations: 1. There are two persons A and Z. A exhibits the false sample of an article to Z and intentionally makes Z believe that the article corresponds with the sample. A here induces Z to buy and pay for the false sample of the article. A cheats Z. 2. A, by pledging as diamond articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.
Read more