At the end of the case, bench concluded that the plaintiff had not proved the case beyond any doubt, which explains why the defendant was acquitted of the charge of the offence punishable under section 138 of the NI Act. [S.S. Auto Gallery v. Vaneet Singh, 21636 of 2016, decision on 9-10-2021] HELD: It was based on the Supreme Court decision in CC Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. whether it has been established that the absence of avoidance in the complaint concerning the service of communications on the respondent is a question of evidence. The court found that at no time in this case had the defendant asked the plaintiff to pay the balance. Instead, she had remained silent by taking advantage of the huge amount of Rs 24 lakhs, which made it clear that the non-purchase of the ticket was not due to the non-payment of the remaining amount. In addition, there was no forfeiture clause. It was added that if the police had really intervened, the accused could have presented evidence to demonstrate police intervention.
But there was absolutely no evidence that the check was issued, either under pressure from the police or due to any other coercion. In conclusion, Bench noted that the presumption required by Section 139 of the NI Act does include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, which is a rebuttable presumption open to the defendant to invoke a defense in which the existence of the legally enforceable debt or liability can be challenged. In view of the sufficient reasons for continuing the proceedings, criminal proceedings were instituted against the accused and she was summoned. Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J., dealt with an issue relating to the non-cashing of cheques and noted that the director/managing director/co-director/other officers and employees of the company cannot be sued under section 138 of the NI Act unless the company is charged as a defendant The High Court has not dealt with as many legal issues as the Court of Appeal. It focused on whether or not procedural law had been respected. When it found that the plaintiff had not complied with the notification procedure provided for in section 138 of the Act, nor did it pay the defendant. The verdict suffers from a lack of analysis. The applicant attempted to distance the applicability of the Alavi-Hajj relationship from the current facts and circumstances – which is important because it dug holes in the arguments of the courts of appeal.
However, it was never raised by the High Court. The special judge appeared to interpret the absurdity of the Supreme Court`s decision as a way to bring unscrupulous fraudsters to justice by simply letting them cash in within a fortnight of receiving a subpoena. However, the judgment used the phrase “by mail with correct address”. There was enough room to examine whether the use of an old and irrelevant address was at the height of the absurdity that Alavi Hajj wanted to address; that is, whether adding an unused address at the top and the actual correspondence address at the bottom could be perceived as a method to avoid receiving notifications. Further analysis may have helped set a clear precedent. During his cross-examination, when the financial capacity to pay the defendant Rs. 6 lakhs was questioned, there was no satisfactory response from the complainant. The evidence on the record is therefore a probable defence on behalf of the defendant, shifting the burden to the complainant of proving his financial standing and other facts. This case concerns information submitted by Jasper Infotech (P) Ltd.
against Kaff Appliances India (P) Ltd. for alleged violation of section 3(4) of the Competition Act. The informant posted OP-Kaff`s products on its online portal “Snapdeal” at a discounted price, which was violated by the PO`s posting of a warning on its website claiming that the OP`s products sold by Informant through its website were unauthorized and false. The warning provided states that OP does not comply with any warranty for its products sold on said website and that any purchase made by it would be at the customer`s own risk. Thank you for your answer, but I could not understand your answer. I have already filed a check bounce complaint against them, but for the delivery of the notification, this is the required address. I discovered that it is not available at the address indicated. Is there a legal way to reach them? It is in a sound legal position that, in the case of a cash transaction, evidence that the plaintiff did not have sufficient financial capacity to lend money to the defendant is a likely defence and may help rebut the presumption that was in the plaintiff`s favor in cases of cheque evasion. In addition, the complainant subsequently sent a subpoena to the correspondence address, indicating that he knew the correspondence address. The presumption of service of the notification could not be attributed to the complainant if the communication had been sent to the wrong address.
Since the required notice had not been served, the complaint could not be considered valid. The Supreme Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh ruled today that the finding that it had received the legal requirement for review under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be levied if the notice was sent to its correct address. Such a conclusion could not be drawn if the notice had been addressed to the wrong address of the cheque drawer, the court stressed. The High Court stated that, if the presumption of service of the communication is raised within a reasonable time, the notice sent on 19.09.2012 is at best deemed to have been served within 30 days from the date of issue. The applicant was required to make payment for that notification within 15 days. Referring to the legal situation clarified in the above-mentioned cases, Bench indicated that the complaint cannot be dismissed up to the threshold, even if it does not make a specific avoidance with regard to the delivery of communications to the drawer at any given time. However, the complaint must contain basic facts about the method of communication to the cheque drawer. If the defendant is able to present a probable defense that raises doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the plaintiff is liable. Thus, in this case, it should be noted that a notice of claim was served only on the applicant/respondent, that there was no notice of claim against the Company, so the claimant cannot be sued for violation of section 138 of the NI Act without considering the Company as a defendant in the complaint case. `If the drawer of the cheque does not reimburse the amount within 15 days from the date of service of the communication, the means of lodging the complaint shall be formed.` According to settled case law, it is a defendant who claims that he has not received the legal notice who may make payment of the amount of the cheque within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the court, and a defendant who does not make such a payment cannot claim that the notice was not properly served in accordance with section 138. disregard the legal presumption to the contrary under section 27 of the General Clauses Act and section 114 of the Evidence Act [C.C. Alavi Haji v.
Palapetty Muhammed, (2007) 6 SCC 555]. Competition Commission of India (ICC): The Bank of Ashok Kumar Gupta, Chairman, and Augustine Peter and U.C. Nahta, members, closed a case under section 26(6) of the Competition Act, 2002, by conducting an analysis of the DG`s detailed investigation report. The applicant`s record is inherently very weak, since in his testimony he was unable to sufficiently prove the existence of an iron trading business and the supply of those assets to the defendant.