LATEST NEWS ON BANKING LAW
LATEST CASE LAWS
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. The Supreme Court bench noted that the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Thereupon, the High Court will consider the evidence and the material on record to decide whether th...
Jain P. Jose v. Santosh and Another
November 10, 2022
REED 2022 SC 11008
It was tyranny of justice caused to the complainant after spending 10 years in litigation left with no other option but to compromise for the reason that if the matter was processed any further in the Supreme Court, he will be deprived of his legitimate claim which had at least now become due to him after his complaint being tried by three different Courts in hierarchy upholding conviction of the petitioner with the concurrent finding of guilt for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act....
Santhosh J. v. V. Narasimha Murthy
October 18, 2022
REED 2022 SC 10002
The petitioner was a Non-Financial Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner company is engaged inter-alia in the business of rendering finance/loan facilities, to the intending borrowers.
The Directors and authorised representatives of respondent No.1 approached the petitioner requesting the grant of a Secured Term Loan. The petitioner inter-alia sanctioned a Loan Facility namely Loan against Property (hereinafter, LAP) for an amount of ₹ 32.00. Crore (also known as Secured Term Loan) and another loan namely Lease Rental Discoun...
Hero Fincorp. Limited v. Techno Trexim (I) Private Limited and Others
November 18, 2022
REED 2022 Del 11211
The High Court noted that prima facie, the notification was divesting the jurisdiction of DRTs at various locations by creating a pecuniary limitation without any amendment to the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1953. This appears to be unsustainable, the Bench observed.
The High Court observed, "prima facie, it appears from the record that, the Debts Recovery Tribunals established at various locations, would now be divested of their jurisdiction, on the ground of pecuniary limitation created by a Notification, without any amendment to the RDB Act. This appears to be unsus...
Ishwarlal Shankarlal Lalwani (Jain) v. The Union of India, Through The Chief Secretary