Satish Law Agency

 THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 : Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account- Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for [a term which may be extended to two years], or fine which may extent to twice the amount of the cheque, or with Both. Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless: (a) the c...

DELHI HIGH COURT (DB) Before:-  Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ  and  Subramonium Prasad, J.   W.P.(C) 12787 of 2019 & CM APPL. 52252 of 2019. D/d. 24.01.2023.   Yashdeep Chahal - Petitioner Versus Union Of India & Ors. – Respondents   For the Petitioner:- Mr. Chirag Madan, Mr. G Sai Krishna Kumar, Ms. Ravleen Sabarwal, Ms. Smirdhi Sharma, Mr. Deepesh Bahadur, Advocates.   For the UOI:- Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Ajay Digpaul, CGSC, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr. Kamal Digpaul, Mr. Sahaj Garg, Ms. Swati Kwatra, Advocates.   For the Respondent No. 3:- Mr. Nitin Sharma, Mr. Sumant Narang, Mr. Ranjeet Singh Sindhu, Ms. Nisha Bhambani, Mr. Rajat Arora, Ms. Mariya Shahab, Advocates.   For the Respondent No. 4:- Mr. Atul Batra, Mr. Kundan Mishra, Advocates.   For the Respondent No. 5:- Mr. Shahrukh Ejaz, Ms. Harnek Kaur, Advocates.   For the Respondent No. 7:- Mr. Tejas Karia, Mr. Gauhar Mirza, Ms.Amee R...

  SUPREME COURT MONTHLY January 2023 2023(1) SCM 1 VIVEK NARAYAN SHARMA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA   D/d: 02.01.2023 Click here to download Read full Judgement below:

 SUPREME COURT MONTHLY 2022 VOLUME XII Click here to download Sample view:- SCM 2022 Vol XII

"Para 28. ...While it is true that the quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases, it is still the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case with great detail to prevent miscarriage of justice...."

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before:- Fateh Deep Singh, J. CRM-M No.12547 of 2016, CRM-M No.21891 of 2014, CRM-M No.15394 of 2016, CRM-M No.8701 of 2016, CRM-M No.3451 of 2016, CRM-M No.21686 of 2016, CRM-M No.19357 of 2016, CRM-M No.3824 of 2016, CRM-M No.19308 of 2014 (O&M), CRM-M No.43371 of 2015, CRM-M No.16762 of 2016, CRM-M No.44285 of 2015, CRM-M No.26370 of 2015, CRM-M No.26746 of 2015, CRM-M No.5341 of 2016, CRM-M No.2508o 2016, CRM-M No.14238 of 2016, CRM-M No.5470 of 2016, CRM-M No.7098 of 2016, CRM-M No.5793 of 2016, CRM-M No.40522 of 2015, CRM-M No.2317 of 2016, CRM-M No.4776 of 2016, CRM-M No.7272 of 2015, CRM-M No.13004 of 2016 (O&M), CRM-M No.14245 of 2016, CRM-M No.8071 of 2016, CRM-M No.25835 of 2015, CRM-M No.17061 of 2016, CRM-M No.12525 of 2015, CRM-M No.17878 of 2016, CRM-M No.16847 of 2016, CRM-M No.12394 of 2016, CRM-M No.5311 of 2016. D/d. 23.11.2016. Avtar Singh And Others - Petitioners Versus Harminder Singh Kang And Others – Respondents For the Peti...