Skip to main content

Decide on dud cheque cases in three months, Supreme Court orders magistrates

Magistrate courts across the country should decide on cheque bouncing cases in three months, the Supreme Court has directed.

The SC has also directed magistrates to scrutinize cheque bouncing complaints on the day they are lodged, if the documents attached are in order, and issue summons immediately.

The Indian Banks' Association had moved the SC seeking directions to magistrates to adopt policy and legislative changes for cheque bouncing cases. The banks had alleged that due to the delay in disposing of such cases, they find it difficult to recover the blocked money.

The SC has also observed that summons must be properly addressed and sent by post and email. In appropriate cases, magistrates may take the assistance of police or nearby courts to serve notices. While a short date should be fixed for notice of appearance, if the summons is unserved, immediate follow-up action should be taken, the SC said.

The SC has clarified that in the summons, magistrates may indicate that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing, it may pass appropriate orders at the earliest. Magistrates can also accept affidavits of witnesses, instead of examining them in court.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Decide-on-dud-cheque-cases-in-three-months-Supreme-Court-orders-magistrates/articleshow/34746219.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more