The Ultimate Goal oF     

The Bombay High Court invalidated the Look Out Circulars (LOCs) issued by the CBI against Rhea Chakraborty and her family concerning the investigation into actor Sushant Singh Rajput’s death, emphasizing that the mere registration of an FIR does not warrant the issuance of an LOC. "The court emphasized that the Look Out Circular (LOC) cannot linger indefinitely, particularly in this instance, where it extended for over 3½ years. Despite the petitioners' cooperation with the investigation, a fact undisputed, the court highlighted that the fundamental right to travel cannot be restricted except through a due process established by law." Justices Revati Mohite Dere and Manjusha Deshpande, presiding over a division bench, granted the petitions submitted by Rhea Chakraborty, her brother Showik, and their parents, Indrajit and Sandhya, to annul the LOCs issued against them in 2020. The court acknowledged the Chakrabortys' cooperation with the CBI's investigation, highlighting their prompt attendance at the CBI office whenever summoned, and found no evidence of attempts to evade arrest or summons on their part. CORAM: REVATI MOHITE DERE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ. .

Read more

The Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court directed the Sessions Court not to proceed in the matter till the next date of hearing. The Applicant Chandrashekhar .S. Jhadav a retired chief fire officer of NMC has approached the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court by filing criminal application challenging the session court order of rejecting the application for discharge. The offense under section 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of corruption act, came to be registered in Crime No.3520 of 2013 against the applicant Chandrashekhar Jhadav and other co-accused, on the pretext that by issuing the Fire NOC to one Pratibha Khandelwal to the tune of Rs.1,13,75,500/- The Session Court rejected the applicant for discharge filed by the applicant/accused Shri Chandrashekhar Jhadav. The matter came before the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, comprising of Justice M.W. Chandwani. The Counsel for Applicant Adv. Ishwar.S. Charlewar along with Adv. Kadambini Meshram and Adv. Swapnil Bharti contended before the court that there are no allegations about the accepting any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage which is a condition precedent of attracting Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. Adv. Ishwar .S. Charlewar, Adv. Kadambini Meshram and Adv. Swapnil Bharti appeared for the applicant and APP N.B. Jawade represented the state. .

Read more

Supreme Court: Resigned Director Not Liable for Cheque Bounce In a recent landmark ruling, the Supreme Court of India clarified that a director who resigns before a company issues a cheque cannot be held accountable for its bounce. The court's decision, grounded in Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizes the legal protection afforded to directors who have severed ties with a company. The case revolved around a complaint alleging cheque dishonor due to insufficient funds, invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. However, Justices B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol scrutinized the timeline, noting that the director's resignation preceded the issuance of the disputed cheque. They emphasized that the director had submitted Form 32 in compliance with the Companies Act, 1956, indicating the termination of their association with the company. The court highlighted the dates, with resignations occurring on December 9th, 2013, and March 12th, 2014, while the cheque in question was issued on March 22nd, 2014. This chronological distinction absolved the resigned director from any responsibility for the company's affairs at the time of the cheque issuance. Represented by AOR K. Parameshwar, the appellant successfully argued that the director had no involvement in the issuance of the cheque, as evidenced by Form 32 and the resignation dates. Conversely, AOR Sumeer Sodhi represented the respondent. The court's ruling underscores the significance of Form 32, which unequivocally demonstrates a director's disassociation from the company and absolves them of liability for subsequent financial transactions. By aligning with the Companies Act and prioritizing legal compliance, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the protection afforded to directors who have formally resigned from their positions before the occurrence of financial obligations. .

Read more