Skip to main content

Rs 5.55 lakh fine for stop payment - Burden of proof considered

Supreme Court, last week, set aside the judgment of the Karnataka High Court and imposed a fine of Rs 5.55 lakh on the drawer of a cheque for stopping payment in the case, T Vasanthakumar vs Vijayakumari. The magistrate had imposed the fine or in default five months imprisonment on the woman, who issued the cheque. She was a partner in a film distribution firm and the opposite party was a theatre owner. They had commercial transactions during which disputes arose. The question involved was who had the burden of proof to show that the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or liability. The court ruled that the woman had the duty to prove that in this case, but as it was not done, she should suffer the punishment.

 Article referred: http://www.business-standard.com/article/opinion/excise-duty-at-point-of-sale-sc-115050300727_1.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Defamation: A newspaper is in no different position from an individual

In The Publisher and Editor of Divya Himachal and anr. Versus Parkash Chand and ors., the HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT has held that a newspaper is in no different position from an individual and it cannot give currency to a defamatory statement and escape upon the ground itself that, it showed that it did not believe that which it had published. That may have some bearing on the question of damages but not upon the question of liability. The responsibility in either case is the same. The degree of care and attention is in no way less in the case of newspaper publications other than that required from ordinary men. In India, since we have a written constitution, it is recognized that freedom of speech is not an absolute unlimited right. Article 19(2) provides reasonable restrictions on what is guaranteed by article 19(1)(a). Therefore, the mass media must maintain high professional standards and are obliged to verify the correctness of the news disseminated. Publication of false ne
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th October, 2012 that the  law  can  be  summarised  that  in  an agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains  merely  a  trustee/bailee 
7 comments
Read more

Claim rejected if misrepresentation or non-disclosure caused insurer to insure

In NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD vs M/S.PATTU AGENCIES, the appeal was preferred before  Hon'ble Kerala High Court against order of the trial court with the primary object of the insurer being that the change of address of the insured property had not been intimated to the insurer. The Hon'ble High Court rejecting the ground for disallowing the claim held "It is true that a policy can be avoided for misrepresentation or non-disclosure. However, the misrepresentation or non-disclosure should be a material one and it must have induced the Insurance Company to make the policy in favour of the insured. The non-disclosure or misrepresentation should have induced the insurer to enter into the contract. There must be a specific case that there was inducement to issue a policy relying on the facts disclosed by the insurer and that there was non-disclosure or misrepresentation. The test is whether the insurer would have made a different decision had the facts been correctly discl
Post a Comment
Read more