Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad Khan, 2022 Scc Online J&K 565

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Fayaz Ahmad Sheikh...

The court observed that, a complaint under section 138 of NI Act, when an FIR of offences under section 420, 560 IPC was already filed with respect to circumstances of identical nature/ same transaction does not amount to forum shopping or double jeopardy. The offence under section 420 IPC is made during the issuance of the cheque while that is not the case with the offence covered under section 138 of NI Act. Both the offences are independent and distinct from one other and do not attract the principle of double jeopardy. The court held that it is within the rights of the respondent to go ahead with the prosecution for both the offences simultaneously under section 138 of NI Act and section 420 of IPC.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Arbitration at the Crossroads of Energy Regulations: Critical Assessment of Cerc’s Exclusive Arbitration Referral Authority

Poised between private autonomy and statutory control, Arbitration occupies a peculiar space in India’s energy sector. Projects contracts such as Power purchase agreements (PPAs),transmission contracts, and implementation agreements increasingly incorporate arbitration clauses, reflecting the sector’s.. Read more »

S.74 Contract Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Permissible If It’s Not Excessive Amounting To Penalty : SC

In Godrej Projects Development Limited v. Anil Karlekar & Ors (Civil Appeal No. 3334/2023), the Supreme Court ruled that forfeiture of earnest money in property transactions is valid if reasonable and does not fall under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, unless it forms part of the consideration. The court emphasized that unfair and... Read more » Read more »

The Exorbitant Price of Justice: Assessing Security Deposits in Arbitration Appeals under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

The 2015 amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act aimed to revolutionize the arbitration process in India, focusing on enhancing time and cost efficiency, and ensuring flexibility of procedures with minimal judicial intervention. Despite these progressive intentions, the imposition of 100% security deposits for the... Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.