SC: Suit Alleging Coercion or Undue Influence Cannot be Rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC  ||  Cal HC: Once ED Attachment is Confirmed, Challenge Becomes Academic; PMLA Remedy Must be Pursued  ||  MP HC: Pen-Drive Evidence Cannot be Introduced At a Late Trial Stage Without Proof or Relevance  ||  Calcutta HC: Employee Can't be Stopped From Joining Rival Post-Resignation; Trade Secrets Protected  ||  Calcutta HC: Banks Must Provide Forensic Audit Report Before Calling an Account Fraudulent  ||  Del HC: Woman Cannot Demand Re-Entry to Abandoned Matrimonial Home if Alternate Accommodation Exists  ||  Calcutta HC: Land Acquisition For Industrial Park is Public Purpose; Leasing to Industry is Valid  ||  Patna HC: PwD Recruitment Must Comply With RPwD Act; Executive Resolutions Cannot Override the Law  ||  Madras HC: Individuals Facing Criminal Trial Must Get Court Permission Even to Renew Passports  ||  Calcutta HC: Demolition Orders Cannot be Challenged under Article 226 if a Statutory Appeal Exists    

Wilson Mathew v. The State NCT of Delhi and Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (15 Sep 2015)

Security cheques to be proved as given in discharge of legally enforceable debt

MANU/DE/2691/2015

Banking

In a case involving arrest of the accused for dishonoured cheques, the Court allowed the accused’s petition. It noted the peculiar facts of the case and various contradictions in the complainant’s statements, particularly that it had accepted the postdated cheques from the accused as security. The Court held that though there was a presumption that a holder of a cheque received it in discharge of debt, the complainant had failed to establish the same.

Relevant : ICD v. Beena Shabir and Anrs. MANU/SC/0669/2002 K. Prakashan v. P.K. Surenderan MANU/SC/8009/2007 Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatreya Hegde MANU/SC/0503/2008

Tags : SECURITY   CHEQUE   PRESUMPTION   ENFORCEABLE DEBT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved