legal judgment - The Legal Chamber

Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case

7Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Cheque Bounce Case: Supreme Court Reinstates Case Against Director in ₹6 Crore Cheque Dishonour Case

The Supreme Court clarified that for vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, complaints need not reproduce statutory language verbatim. Substantive allegations demonstrating a director's responsibility for company affairs suffice. The Court emphasized substance over form, ruling that technical pleading deficiencies don't invalidate proceedings if the complaint, read holistically, establishes the director's operational role. The judgment reinstated criminal proceedings against the director, overturning the High Court's quashing order. Facts Of The Case: The case involved a complaint filed by HDFC Bank against M/s R Square Shri Sai Baba Abhikaran Pvt. Ltd. and its directors, including Mrs. Ranjana Sharma (Respondent No. 2), for dishonor of a cheque worth ₹6...

CBI vs. Accused: Supreme Court Rules on Discharge in Cotton MSP Scam Case

The Supreme Court held that the trial court and High Court erred in discharging the accused under Section 239 CrPC by relying on defence-produced documents (CCI’s exoneration letter) at the pre-trial stage. Reiterating Debendra Nath Padhi, it ruled that only prosecution material under Section 173 CrPC can be considered for discharge, not extraneous evidence. The Court emphasized that discharge requires examining whether the chargesheet discloses a prima facie case, without evaluating defence merits. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration under Section 239 CrPC, barring reliance on non-prosecution documents. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a criminal conspiracy where Rayapati Subba Rao (A-1), a Cotton Purchase Officer (CPO) of Cotton Corporation of India (CCI), Guntur, alleg...

Who Pays for Poor Students?:Supreme Court Stops Kerala’s Extra Fee on NRI Medical Students

The Supreme Court held that the Kerala government's directive to create a corpus fund from NRI student fees lacked legislative backing, violating the principle that fees cannot be levied without statutory authority. It ruled that unaided institutions retain autonomy over fee structures, subject only to anti-profiteering regulations, and emphasized that welfare measures must be enacted through proper legislation. The Court allowed colleges to retain collected funds but mandated their use for subsidizing economically weaker students. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a dispute over the Kerala government's directive requiring self-financing medical colleges to contribute a portion of fees collected from Non-Resident Indian (NRI) students towards a corpus fund. This fund aimed to subs...