http://www.advocateakashchikate.com/

Adv. Akash Chikate, Adv. Akash Chikate, Pune (2026)

18/04/2023

As a lawyer with experience in handling cheque bounce cases, I find the recent Bombay High Court decision on the liability of the company's authorized signatory under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act particularly noteworthy.

Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act was introduced in 2018 to provide interim relief to the payee in cheque bounce cases. The provision allows the payee to claim interim compensation from the drawer of the cheque, even before the trial is completed.

In a recent decision, the Bombay High Court clarified that the authorized signatory of a company, who is not the drawer of the cheque, cannot be held liable to pay interim compensation under Section 143A. The court held that the authorized signatory of a company cannot be equated with the drawer of the cheque, even if they signed the cheque on behalf of the company.

The court observed that the provisions of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act do not impose any liability on the authorized signatory of a company who is not the drawer of the cheque. If the payee wants to claim interim compensation from the authorized signatory, they need to establish that the signatory had knowledge of the cheque's dishonor and had a role to play in its issuance.

This decision is significant as it provides clarity on the scope of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ensures that the authorized signatory of a company is not unfairly held liable for something that they have not done.

This decision by the Bombay High Court provides valuable guidance to lawyers and their clients on how to proceed in cheque bounce cases.

17/04/2023

I have been following the recent judgment by the Kerala High Court in the case of IAS officer Sreeram Venkittaraman, who was accused of causing the death of a journalist while driving under the influence of alcohol. The court's ruling that the prosecution does not need to prove the accused was drunk at the time of the accident to establish culpable homicide under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is a significant development in the legal landscape.
The court held that if the accused consumed alcohol before driving and that contributed to the accident, then they can be held guilty of culpable homicide, regardless of whether they were drunk at the time of the accident. This is a departure from the earlier position that required the prosecution to prove that the accused was drunk at the time of the accident to establish culpable homicide.

Furthermore, the court observed that in cases of drunken driving resulting in death, the accused cannot be exonerated merely on the basis of a lack of documentary evidence, such as a blood alcohol test. The court recognized that there are instances where such evidence may not be available or may not be reliable, and the prosecution should not be disadvantaged by this.
This judgment underscores the gravity of the offense of drunken driving and the accountability of the accused in such cases. It emphasizes the need for drivers to exercise caution and responsibility when consuming alcohol, and the serious consequences that can result from drunken driving.

In my opinion, this judgment by the Kerala High Court will have far-reaching implications and send a strong message to society about the need to drive responsibly and avoid the devastating consequences of drunken driving. It also highlights the importance of having a robust legal framework that can hold offenders accountable and prevent such accidents from happening in the first place.

I believe it is crucial for us to continue engaging in conversations around road safety and creating awareness about the legal consequences of drunken driving. This will not only help in preventing accidents but also ensure justice for victims and their families.

14/05/2022

What is 'Charge Sheet Framing'?

When an accused is on trial, all he gets is hearing dates. When the police complete the crime investigation committed by the accused, they inform the magistrate about the clauses under which the accused has been charged. The charge sheet is said to have been framed when the investigation of the crime is completed and the actual charges are framed. Only then does the accused have a chance to refute the charges against him in court.

‘चार्ज शीट फ्रेम करणे' म्हणजे काय ?

जेव्हा एका आरोपीवर खटला चालू असतो तेव्हा त्याला निव्वळ तारखा मिळत असतात. जेव्हा पोलिसांकडून आरोपीने केलेल्या गुन्ह्याचा तपास पूर्ण होतो तेव्हा ते दंडाधिकान्यांकडे सदर आरोपीवर कोणत्या कलमांखाली दोषारोप ठेवलेले आहेत त्याची माहिती देतात. अर्थात गुन्ह्याचा तपास पूर्ण करीत प्रत्यक्ष दोषारोपाची मांडणी करतात तेव्हा चार्ज शीट फ्रेम केली असे म्हणतात. न्यायालयात त्यानंतरच आरोपीला आपल्याविरुद्ध दोषारोष केलेल्या आरोपांचे खंडन करण्याची संधी मिळते.

11/05/2022

Section 18 of the 1989 Act has been enacted to take care of an inherent deterrence and to instil a sense of protection amongst the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is submitted that any dilution of the same would shake the very objective of the mechanism to prevent the offences of atrocities. The directions issued would cause a
miscarriage of justice even in deserving cases. With a view to object apprehended misuse of the law, no such direction can be issued. In case there is no prima facie case made out under the 1989 Act, anticipatory bail can be granted. The same was granted in the case in question also.

11/05/2022

The Supreme Court has passed several orders, granting divorce by mutual consent through the virtual hearing system.

On June 3, 2020, the bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, passed the decree for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent in the case titled Anisha Arjun Raj v. Arjun Sundar Raj.

11/05/2022

Bail is a matter of right, Jail an exception.

Nowadays, the prosecution agencies unnecessarily oppose the bail application of the accused on the ground that his presence in custody is necessary for making a search and recovery of documents in his/her presence.

However, The Supreme Court in Harsh Sawhney v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, rejected the plea of the prosecution on this ground and directed that the appellant shall appear for the interrogation by the police whenever reasonably required, subject to his/her right under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution.

Now it is the need of the time that the judicial authorities interpret the bail laws in a very systematic and effective manner by which no govt. can infringe the right of the personal liberty of any individual.

29/01/2022

संमतीने घटस्फोट (Divorce by Mutual Consent) घेता येतो का ?

होय. आपल्या कायद्यात जर पती पत्नी यांना आपले लग्नबंधांतून मुक्त व्हायचे असेल तर अनावश्यक कायदेशीर कटकटी टाळणारी ही सोय उपलब्ध केली आहे. यात दोन्ही पक्षकारांना न्यायालयात असे संमतीच्या घटस्फोटाचे पीटिशन दाखल करण्यापूर्वी पती-पत्नी यांनी एकमेकांपासून किमान एक वर्ष वेगळे राहणे आवश्यक असते.

दोन्ही पती-पत्नी ह्यांनी एकदा कौटुंबिक न्यायालयात अशी पीटिशन दाखल केली की मग ती मॅरेज कौन्सिलरकडे पाठवली जाते. त्याठिकाणी शक्यतो लग्न संबंध टिकावे यासाठी प्रयत्न केले जातात. अर्थात दोघांच्या घटस्फोटाचे कारण योग्य असेल तर ते त्यांचा अहवाल न्यायालयात पाठवतात.

येथे त्यांना मूल असल्यास त्याचा देखभाल, खर्च व त्याबाबतची तरतूद तसेच पत्नीला तिचे स्त्रीधन, तिच्या वस्तू मागता येतात. एवढेच नव्हे तर दोघांना मान्य असेल तर एकत्रित पोटगी मागता येते जे दोघांचे सेंटलमेंट टर्मस भरल्या जातात.

त्यानंतर पीटिशन दाखला केल्यापासून ६ महिन्यांत वरील पती-पत्नी दोघांना मॅरेज कौन्सिलरकडे जाऊन आपली वेगळे होण्याची इच्छा परत प्रकट करावी लागते. जर तसे झाले नाही तर घटस्फोट होत नाही. मात्र दोघांनी परत तशीच मागणी कायम ठेवली तर त्यांना न्यायालयात न्यायाधीशांपुढे परत एकवार त्याबाबतची इच्छा प्रकट करावी लागते, ज्यानंतर न्यायाधीश त्यांचा घटस्फोट संमत करतात.

Is it possible to get a divorce (Divorce by Mutual Consent) with consent?

Yes. Our law provides this facility to avoid unnecessary legal hassle if the husband and wife want to get rid of their marital bond. The couple must be separated from each other for at least one year before both parties can file a divorce petition in court.

The couple once filed a petition in the family court, which is then referred to the marriage counselor. Attempts are made to make the marriage last as long as possible. Of course, if the reason for their divorce is correct, they send their report to the court.

Here, if they have a child, they can ask for his care, expenses, and other things as per provisions, as well as his wife's belongings. Not only this, if both of them agree, they can ask for joint alimony which is filled by their settlement terms.

After that, within 6 months from the filing of the petition, both the husband and wife have to go to the marriage counselor and express their desire to separate again. If that doesn't happen, divorce doesn't happen. However, if the couple maintains the same demand, they will have to express their desire once again before the judge in the court, after which the judge will grant their divorce.

24/01/2022

कायद्यामध्ये दोन विभाग सरळमार्गाने करता येतात. त्यातील दिवाणी (Civil) च्या खटल्यांसाठी सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाच्या खंडपीठाचा आदेश हा अंतिम मनाला जातो. तर फौजदारी (Criminal) खटल्यात सर्वोच्च न्यायालयाच्या आदेशानंतरही देशपातळीवर राष्ट्रपती तर राज्य पातळीवर राज्यपाल यांना आरोपीस दिलेली कोणतीही शिक्षा सौम्य करण्यातून तिला माफ कारण्यापर्यंतचा अधिकार असल्याने राष्ट्रपतींचा निर्णय हा अंतिम धरला जातो.

Which court order is final in India?

The court case can be primarily divided into two sections – Civil and Criminal. The order of the bench of the Supreme Court for civil cases is final. The supreme court is also the apex court of our country. In a criminal case, the decision of the President is final as the President has the power to commute any sentence given to the accused at the national level and the Governor at the state level even after the order of the Supreme Court.

05/01/2022

Divorce By Mutual Consent – Can The Cooling Period Be Waived Off?

In cases of divorce by mutual consent, Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 prescribes a 6 month “cool off” or waiting period after the filing of the divorce petition before the matter proceeds, in order to give the couple one last chance at reconciliation. While there has been a lot of debate around whether this 6 month cooling off period is mandatory or whether courts can do away with the requirement in specific cases, various courts across the country have constantly taken different stances on this issue.

The Supreme Court of India has recently clarified the position on this issue in the case of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, by interpreting the law on the mandatory cool off period prescribed for couples divorcing by mutual consent as per the above-mentioned Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The court held that Section 13B(2) is directory and not mandatory and that in future if any court dealing with a case of mutual divorce is satisfied that an appropriate case has been made our to waive the cooling-off period, it may do so subject to the following:

1. A period of one year and six months of the spouses living separately has already passed, before filling of the divorce petition itself.
2. Enforcing the six months would only prolong the agony of the separating spouses.
3. The spouses have legitimately settled their differences and arrived at amicable resolutions on alimony, child custody, joint property, etc.
4. All efforts at reconciliation or mediation have failed, and there is no possibility of success through any further efforts.

The court further directed that such an application for waiver of the 6 months may be filed one week after the first motion, citing adequate reasons for the same. In case the criteria mentioned above are fulfilled, the waiver of the cooling-off period will be at the discretion of the court.

Adv. Akash Chikate
+91 8411982241

10/09/2021

Happy Chaturthi

Adv. Akash Chikate

18/04/2023

17/04/2023

14/05/2022

11/05/2022

11/05/2022

11/05/2022

29/01/2022

24/01/2022

05/01/2022

10/09/2021

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category