Debtor’s Unwillingness to Pay Debts without Proof of his Inability to Pay. We answer in this post- (a) Can Proceedings Commence in such a situation? and (b) Would a cessation of payment by the debtor need to be proved?
Well, you read the Dashrath Rupsingh Case of Supreme Court on territorial jurisdiction in cheque bouncing case . Now read the summary of this Bombay High Court’s judgment delivered on August 25, 2014 which held that all the cases of cheque bouncing, where the cheque was payable at all branches of the bank, can be filed in the court within whose local jurisdiction the nearest available branch of Drawer’s bank was situated.
UPDATED: Mr. Ramanbhai Mathurbhai Patel vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., Cr. Writ Petition No. 2362/2014 (Bombay High Court, August 25, 2014) which discusses the landmark Dashrath Singh judgment delivered by Supreme Court on August 1, 2014.
RBI Master Circular on Foreign Investment in India dated July 1, 2014 (“RBI Master Circular”) which lays down the legal requirements for foriegn direct investment in Non-banking Financial Companies (“NBFCs“). As per this Master Circular, foreign investment into Non-Banking Finance Companies is allowed to the extent of 100% under the automatic route in only the following activities,…
Citation: MANU/SC/0655/2014 Decided On: August 1, 2014 Key Words: Territorial Jurisdiction, Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, Dishonour of Cheque, Cheque Bouncing Issue: Court’s territorial jurisdiction regarding criminal complaints for dishonour of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act (“Act“). Significance: The present case strikes a discordant note on certain aspects of territorial jurisdiction which have for long been considered settled by earlier decisions…
Citation: 2014 (2) SCALE 515 FACTS: Rameshchandra Ambalal Joshi (Petitioner) had taken a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) from the respondent. The Petitioner issued a cheque dated 31st of December, 2005 towards repayment of the loan. The cheque presented for payment by the complainant on 30th of June, 2006 was dishonoured on the…
MSR Leathers Vs. S. Palaniappan and Anr. (2013) 10 SCC 568 Prosecution based on second or successive dishonour of cheque shall be permissible. Facts S. Palaniappan (Respondent) issued four cheques to MSR Leathers (Appellant) on 14th August, 1996. These cheques were presented to the bank by the Appellant on 21st November 1996 and were subsequently…