Downloads

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020

Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd. – This case clarified the concept of ‘consideration’ under Section 138 and discussed the liability of partners in a partnership firm.

K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan & Anr. – This case emphasized the strict liability imposed under Section 138 and highlighted the importance of giving notice to the drawer of the cheque.

Harman Electronics Pvt. Ltd. v. National Panasonic India Pvt. Ltd. – In this case, the Supreme Court held that the offense under Section 138 is a strict liability offense, and the drawer of the cheque is liable even if the cheque is issued for a time-barred debt.

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. – This case clarified the importance of proving the existence of a legally enforceable debt for establishing an offense under Section 138.

Surya Roshni Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank. – This case discussed the liability of the signatory of a cheque and emphasized that even the signatory can be held liable under Section 138.

Vinay Devanna Nayak v. Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamit. – In this case, the court held that the dishonor of a cheque due to “insufficiency of funds” is a strict liability offense, and the intention of the drawer is immaterial.

Basalingappa v. Mudibassapa. – This case clarified that the drawer of a cheque can be held liable under Section 138 even if the cheque was issued as a gift or for any other reason without consideration.

Shantaben Manilal Patel v. State of Gujarat (2021)
Summary: This case was among the first significant ones under the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020. The court examined the procedural aspects of the Act, especially the powers vested in the special courts set up under this law. The case helped clarify the nature of complaints that could be filed and the necessary evidence required for proving land grabbing.

State of Gujarat v. Bhikhubhai Narshibhai Patel (2022)
Summary: The case addressed the issue of retrospective application of the Act. The Gujarat High Court held that the Act could not be applied retrospectively to land grabbing incidents that occurred before the law came into force. This was a crucial judgment as it set the boundary for the temporal application of the Act.

Jasuben vs. Special Court under Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act (2023)
Summary: In this case, the Gujarat High Court dealt with the rights of the accused under the Act, particularly the question of bail. The court emphasized the stringent nature of the law but also noted the importance of safeguarding the rights of the accused, balancing the harsh provisions with fundamental rights.

Narendrabhai v. State of Gujarat (2024)
Summary: This case involved a dispute over agricultural land where the defendants were accused of land grabbing. The special court’s decision in this case provided insights into how evidence of possession and title should be evaluated under the Act, particularly concerning agricultural lands.