#Karnataka #KarnatakaHc #legal #legalnews #primelegal #SBI # Archives

Title: Smt H Bhagyalakshmi v Smt Cheluvamma

Citation: CRL.A No. 2104 of 2018

Decided on: 15.12.2023

Corum: Justice S Rachaiah

Facts of the case

The accused in the present case was an acquaintance of the complainant- a teacher who lent the appellant a sum of Rs. 2.5 Lacks towards the appellants granddaughter’s education and other family necessities. The complainant paid for the same through two instalments of 30,000 each and paid through check the remaining 1,90,000 by the way of cash upon the request of appellant in the presence of three witnesses. However even after the lapse of one year the amount was not repaid back to the complainant.

Upon the complainant insist to repay the said amount, the accused in the month of June 2017 issued a cheque and asked the complainant to present the same for encashment. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, it came to be dishonoured as “could not be proceeded due to alteration”

Subsequently the complainant served legal notice to the appellant in spite of which the amount was not returned nor was a response given to the legal notice. Hence, it constrained the complainant to lodge a complaint against the accused before the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

Legal Provision

The Accused was convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable instrument act which imposes Punishment upon dishonour of checks for insufficiency of funds but was paid compensation through section 357-A of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to compensate victims of crime who have suffered loss or injury due to this that crime.

Issue

i)Whether the finding of the Trial Court in recording the acquittal of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I Act is justified?

ii) Whether the appellant has made out grounds to interfere with the said findings?

Court analysis and decision

The High Court of Karnataka considering various Precedents, allowed the appeal and set aside the order given by the Trial court which came to the conclusion that the cheque has been altered, however there is no such averment in the endorsement of the bank. In the absence of such averment, the Trial Court continued the recording of the acquittal on the same ground which appears to be not proper and perverse.

The court all ordered for the conviction of the appellant under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act for a period of one year and imposed a fine amount of Rs. 3 Lacks. However, the court also awarded compensation for the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,90,000 and a balance of Rs. 10,000 which must be adjusted towards the exchequer of the state later through Sec 357-A CrPC which establishes the government compensation scheme for the victim.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to View the Judgement

Title: Sri Kalyana Murty K v State Bank of India

Citation: WP No. 23327 of 2022

Decided on: 19.10.2023

Coram: Justice K.V Arvind

Introduction

The Karnataka High Court allowed in part the writ petition filed by the petitioner and granted relief for specific aspect of the claim. Justice K.V Arvind while delivering his judgement considering various precedents similar in nature came to the verdict that the State Bank of India must refund a sum amount of Rs. 10 Lacks along with applicable interest to the petitioner indicating a corrective action to rectify the perceived error in the forfeiture decision.

Facts of the case

A writ petition was filed under article 226 and 227 of constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents- State Bank of India to consider the requisition of the petitioner and refund Sri Kalyana Murty of the payment forfeited.

The petitioner emerged as a successful bidder in an auction for the sale of property with the highest bid of Rs. 86,95,000. However, the petitioner could only manage to pay 25% of bid amount as per auction terms and failed to deposit the remaining 75% within the stipulated time. He obtained extensions sighting the reasons of Covid-19 and the financial instability which was followed by health issues. the respondent extended the deadline for payment twice but eventually forfeited 31,73,750 for non-compliance. The petitioner argued that the forfeiture unfair enrichment as the property was resolved at a higher price.

Court’s observation and analysis

The court reviewed Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2022, which governs the sale of secured assists through auction. The court also observed that the respondent’s had the statutory authority to forfeit the amount and the petitioner’s health conditions and other reasons would not justify the same.

However, the court recognized that the forfeiture amount must only be up to 25% of the bid amount as per the auction terms and conditions and the additional amount paid by the petitioner, Rs. 10 Lack was directed to be refunded considering any retention beyond 25%of the actual amount is unjust and unfair enrichment. Having allowed this petition in part the court also held that the applicable interest from the date of payment till refund, expeditiously not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order must be paid by the respondents.

Written by- Namitha Ramesh

Click here to view complete Judgement

Best Lawyers in Bangalore

High Court of Karnataka overturned an acquittal in a cheack dishonour case, convicting the accused under sec 138 of NI act imposing fine and simple imprisonment.

The State bank of India has the statutory authority to forfeit the amount upon nonpayment of bidding money but it cannot exceed its limit and terms and conditions of the auction.