Advocate Sh. Trilok ji has there been any judgement from Supreme Court  againt the order of Bom High Court of 2013, in the case of Kanishka Kapoor, where in vbom high Copurt had cited the the Sec. 138 is not for recovery of unaccounted money, as per guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India

First of all pl tell  us you need citations in favour or against.

Court battles are faught on tactics and any citation will not apply like a computer game.

Janardan Bhat case of Apex court was specific case regarding IT and related rules.

However later SC judgments disagreed with it.

When somebody does not know the latler develoments and submits earlier case laws the courts get inlfluenced and may give desired order.. But it does mean that the same was latest.

If so,  then what value are courts and judgments?  Are constructive criticisms of courts and judgments permitted? Are there any journals which publish such criticisms? Would it amount to contempt of court?

The decision of the SC in the case of  Dashrath Rupsing Rathod vs State of Maharashtra is no longer a good law in view of the recent amendment of section 142 of N I Act relating to territorial Jurisdiction for trial of cases relating to  bounced cheques .

the amedment  provides interalia  as follows 

• Inserts Explanation III after Explanation II as “the expressions used in this section shall have the same meanings as assigned to those expressions in the Information Technology Act, 2000”
• Inserts Section 142 (2) which provides that the offence under Section 138 shall be inquired into and tried only by a court within whose local jurisdiction the bank branch of the payee, where the payee presents the cheque for payment, is situated
• Inserts a new Section 142 A, which provides that  notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or any judgment, decree, order or directions of any court, all cases arising out of Section 138 which were pending in any court, whether filed before it, or transferred to it, before the commencement of the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2015, shall be transferred to the court having jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of section 142 as if that sub-section had been in force at all material times.
• The bill is already approved by the  central cabinet.

Sir, the apex court had made clear that the Sec. 138 of N I Act, does not favour the recovery of loans by money lenders/banks, as it covers only "commercial & Mercantile transactions"  to recover legally enforcible debts or other liabilities, and the rbuuttal u/s 139 is not neccessary is such, cases, please whether issue of cheue with any liability, will amount to have been issued against some consideration?

You are posting your problems at various threads so it is not clear whether you are complainant or accused.

There are solutions if you are accused . And if complainant that APEX COURT  has said the liability is presumed for cheque bounce.

CHEQUE BOUNCE  - REAL PROBLEMS.

Cheque bounce is a draconian law. People post their problems on many public sites like this but every thing can not be explained or detailed.

People try to give solutions but the same has to be implemented at local level by local advocate which is always not possible.

Our group of advocates work on All India basis and provide free legal advice on the spot  with the affected person and his/ her advocate where ever we have cases going on. This procedure helps to get a workable line of action to come out of the problem.

Currently we have on going cases  at following places and even en route persons can take advantage of our efforts.

1. Port blair – Andaman Nicobar.
2. Kolkutta- west Bengal.
3. Noida= UP.
4. Maharashtra-  Mumbai, Nashik, Sangamner. Aurangabad.
5. Gujrat=  surat.

We also discuss one case in this thread that what we are doing in particular case and it may be a guidance for similar cases.

PORT BLAIR :-  The accused was convicted and matter went to appeal where it was remanded back to lower court. However while remanding the appellate court put certain directions hence limited scope for the accused.

We joined at the stage of final arguments in this case at lower court. We raised certain legal points regarding documents and pleadings and applied for further cross of the complainant on certain specific points.

We had the support of BOMBAY HC AND APEX COURT judgments still the discretion is with the local court. So we have gone on revision on this point alone taking support of above citations and certain observations made by the higher court while remanding the case.

Now this revision will go for at least one or two years  for final  decision , by the time we have another specific step ready based on law and procedure.

WE WILL POST THE DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS CASE ON REGULAR BASIS.

Please contact us by  email only. Whatsup contact details will be provided on request for sending copies of documents.