the cheques were not issued for creating any liability or debt, but 'only' for the payment of balance consideration

"We find ourselves unable to accept the finding of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that the cheques were not issued for creating any liability or debt, but 'only' for the payment of balance consideration and that in consequence, there was no legally enforceable debt or other liability. Admittedly, the cheques were issued under and in pursuance of the agreement to sell. Though it is well settled that an agreement to sell does not create any interest in immoveable property, it nonetheless constitutes a legally enforceable contract between the parties to it. A payment which is made in pursuance of such an agreement is hence a payment made in pursuance of a duly enforceable debt or liability for the purposes of Section 138."

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/cheques-issued-in-pursuance-of-an-agreement-to-sell-143853

Conviction for S. 138 NI Act offence reversed where complainant incapable of extending the subject loan

Del HC | Conviction for S. 138 NI Act offence reversed where complainant incapable of extending the subject loan https://blog.scconline.com/post/2019/03/18/del-hc-conviction-for-s-138-ni-act-offence-reversed-where-complainant-incapable-of-extending-the-subject-loan/

Section 138 NI Act: Non-Filing Of I-T Returns Does Not Mean That The Complainant Had No Source Of Income:

_Section 138 NI Act: Non-Filing Of I-T Returns Does Not Mean That The Complainant Had No Source Of Income: MP HC [Read Order]_

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/no-adverse-inference-because-of-non-filing-of-income-tax-returns-143739

When a presumtion Under Section 139 is drawn, the factors relating to the want of documentary evidence

"When a presumtion Under Section 139 is drawn, the factors relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not".

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/-presumption-under-sec139-143621

Handing you herewith the 25 LANDMARK JUDGMENTS

Dear Friends🙏🏾

*Handing you herewith the 25 LANDMARK JUDGMENTS*

1. *Lalita Kumari v. State of UP*
:FIR mandatory in cognizable cases

2. *Mohd. Ahmad Khan vs Shah Bano Begum*
:Section 125 of CrPC Secular

3. *D.K. Basu v. State of Bengal*
:SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person

4. *Nilabati Bahera v. State of Orissa*
:Compensation in case of unlawful arrest and detention

5. *Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra*
:Rights of women relating to arrest

6. *Joginder Kumar v. State of UP*
:SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person

7. *Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha*
:Right of maintenance in Live-in-Relationships

8. *Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar*
:Filing of Multiple FIR

9. *Satya Pal Singh v. State of MP*
:Father of deceased victim has right to appeal

10. *State of UP v. Singhara Singh*
:Section 164 by necessary implication prohibits the magistrate from giving oral evidence of the confession made to him

11. *State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rustum*
:Computation of period of 60/90 Days u/s 167 of CrPC

12. *CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni*
:Police Remand can not exceed 15 Days

13. *Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay*
:Offence triable where the act is done

14. *Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P.*
:Availability of Civil Remedy does not bar filing of a case u/s 200 of CrPC

15. *Dina Nath v. Emperor*
:No summary trial in serious or complicated cases

16. *Surendra Singh v. State of UP*
:Where a Judge who wrote the Judgment dies before it was delivered or pronounced, another Judge can not deliver it

17. *Naresh v. State of UP*
:Alteration of Conviction u/s 302 IPC to one u/s 304 IPC by HC is not justified u/s 362 of CrPC

18. *Ashok Kumar v. UOI*
:Constitutional validity of Section 433-A of CrPC

19. *Rasiklal v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani*
:Right to bail u/s 436 in bailable offences is an absolute and indefeasible right

20. *Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab*
:SC guidelines relating to anticipatory bail

21. *Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan*
:Quashing of FIR on account of delay

22. *State of MP v. Madan Lal*
:No compromise in Rape cases

23. *Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan*
:Compensation to victim of Crime

24. *S.R. Sukumar v. Sunnad Raghuram*
:Amendment in complaint can be done

25. *Siddaharth Vashisht v. State(NCT of Delhi)*
:Cryptic Telephonic Message of a cognizable offence not to be treated as F.I.R;

*Actively watching Celebrated / Landmark Judgements too*
*Ln; UdayPrabhu@Activist.com*

NI Act- Once The Presumption Under Sec.139 Is Drawn, Complainant Need Not Prove Source Of Fund Till Accused Discharges His Burden

*NI Act- Once The Presumption Under Sec.139 Is Drawn, Complainant Need Not Prove Source Of Fund Till Accused Discharges His Burden [Read Judgment]*

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/-presumption-under-sec139-143621

SC Directs Govt To Consider Setting Up Of Mediation Authority For Speedy Disposal Of Motor Accident Claims

*SC Directs Govt To Consider Setting Up Of Mediation Authority For Speedy Disposal Of Motor Accident Claims[Read Judgment]*

_SC also Directed the Govt to consider the feasibility of enacting *Indian Mediation* Act to take care of various aspects of mediation in general_

https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/sc-recommends-to-establish-motor-accident-mediation-authority-143342