spinner

Delhi High Court Judgment: Anil Kulshrestha vs. FIITJEE Ltd.

Last Updated: 22-09-2024 04:06:59pm
Delhi High Court Judgment: Anil Kulshrestha vs. FIITJEE Ltd.

On 20th September 2024, the Delhi High Court ruled within the case of Anil Kulshrestha vs. FIITJEE Ltd., concerning a complaint beneath Segment 138 of the Debatable Rebellious Act (NI Act). The complaint was recorded after two cheques issued by Kulshrestha, who was utilized as an Right hand Teacher at FIITJEE, were dishonored upon introduction.

 Case Details

FIITJEE claimed that Kulshrestha signed a Service Contract Manual, which included terms obligating him to provide security cheques. These cheques were issued for ₹2,92,800 and ₹8,47,200, meant to cover potential damages if he breached the contract. The checks were deposited by FIITJEE after Kulshrestha reportedly broke the agreement by neglecting to report for work starting in October 2022.

However, the checks were later returned with the notation, "Payment Stopped by Drawer." After that, FIITJEE sent out a legal notice, to which no response was received. As a result, a criminal complaint was filed in accordance with Section 138 of the NI Act. After receiving the complaint, the magistrate called Kulshrestha.

 

Petitioner's Argument

Kulshrestha argued that the cheques were issued as security, not against any legally enforceable debt, making the complaint invalid. He also claimed the service contract was signed under undue influence, and that the summoning order was passed without proper consideration of the facts.

 

Court's Ruling

The Court upheld the summons, noting that whether the cheques were issued as security is a factual defense to be determined during the trial. The Court emphasized that legal presumptions under Section 138 support the complainant, and such disputes should be resolved through evidence in court, not at the preliminary stage.

 

Conclusion

The petition was dismissed, allowing the trial to proceed, with the Court reiterating that factual defenses cannot quash a Section 138 complaint at an early stage.

Click Here to: Download/View Related File

TAGS: Delhi High Court Anil Kulshrestha FIITJEE Ltd. Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act dishonored cheques security cheques service contract legal notice summoning order breach of contract.


Latest Posts

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoners' Right to Legal Aid in Landmark Ruling

Supreme Court Upholds Prisoner...

Supreme Court’s Verdict in Lalta Prasad Vaish & Sons vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Supreme Court’s Verdict in L...

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Structure for Artificers in Indian Navy

Supreme Court Upholds Pay Stru...

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against HDFC Bank in Locker Operation Dispute

Supreme Court Quashes FIR Agai...

Supreme Court Ruling on Corporate Insolvency Proceedings: Vidyasagar Prasad vs UCO Bank

Supreme Court Ruling on Corpor...

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode's Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court Ruling on Yashod...

Supreme Court Resolves Lease Dispute between Central Warehousing Corporation and Sidhartha Tiles

Supreme Court Resolves Lease D...

Supreme Court Denies Interest on Delayed Pension for

Supreme Court Denies Interest ...