The notice demanding payment of the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque is one of the main ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. In the event of the main ingredient not being satisfied on account of discrepancy in the amount of cheque and one mentioned in the notice, all proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act would fall flat as bad in law. The notice to be issued under Proviso (b) to Section 138 of the Act, must mention the same amount for which the cheque was issued. It is mandatory that the demand in the statutory notice has to be the very amount of the cheque.
In construing fiscal statutes and in determining the liability of a subject to tax one must have regard to the strict letter of law. If the revenue satisfies the court that the case falls strictly within the provisions of the law, the subject can be taxed. If, on the other hand, the case is not covered within the four corners of the provisions of the taxing statute, no tax can be imposed by inference or by analogy or by trying to probe into the intentions of the legislature and by considering what was the substance of the matter
Sale of an immovable property has to be for a price. Payment of price is essential, even if it is payable in the future. A sale deed executed without the payment of price is not a sale at all in the eyes of law. It is void.
Condonation of 3966 days delay: Courts ought not give a legitimizing effect to such callous attitude of State authorities or its instrumentalities, and should remain extra cautious, if the party seeking condonation of delay is a State-authority. They should not become surrogates for State laxity and lethargy. Constitutional courts ought to be cognizant of the apathy and pangs of a private litigant.
It is the duty of the police to register an FIR if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the police is not required to go into the genuineness and credibility of the said information. It has been so laid down very clearly in Ramesh Kumari (2006) 2 SCC 677 that the genuineness or credibility of the information is not the condition precedent for registration of an FIR
The duty of the court in cases where an accused seeks quashing of an FIR or proceedings on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous, or vexatious, or instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance was delineated by the Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., reported as 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951. If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal – proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused
A marital dispute arising out of a marriage conducted in India between two Hindus under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act can only be entertained and considered under the provisions of the HMA and not by the application of any foreign law.
Stamp duty amount is paid for registration of the Conveyance / Sale Deed. The Conveyance Deed was never lodged for registration. Neither the Petitioners are lax in their approach towards seeking refund of stamp duty amount. Refund Applications of the Petitioners for refund of stamp duty stand allowed in accordance with law. State cannot unjustly enrich itself at the cost of its citizens. Failure of the transaction once shown and proven in this case entitles the Applications / Petitioners to refund of stamp duty paid once the transfer fails.
It is trite that where both, a civil remedy as well as a criminal remedy for any transaction are available, the aggrieved person can avail both the remedies. The period of 45 days under reference is not a lump sum consolidated period; it is 15 days (after service of statutory notice, to pay vide proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Act) plus 30 days (to file complaint under Section 141(1)(b) of the Act). The period of 30 days or 31 days (the provision uses the expression “one month”) is akin to the limitation period after arising of cause of action.
For transfer of membership fee, a society is precluded from charging any amount apart from the transfer fee of Rs.25,000/-. The resolution to charge the welfare fee is but a camouflage to recover more amount for transfer than permissible in accordance with the Government directive