Cheque bounce not for signature mismatch

Mustafa Surka - vs State Of Gujarat 

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1874147/

11. In the instant case, there is no dispute about the endorsement that "drawers signature differs from the specimen supplied" and/or "no image found-signature" and/or "incomplete signature / illegible" and for return/dishonour of cheque on the above endorsement will not attract ingredients of Section 138 of the Act and insufficient fund as a ground for doshonouring cheque cannot be extended so as to cover the endorsement "signature differed from the specimen supplied" or likewise. If the cheque is returned/bounced/dishonoured on the endorsement of "drawers signature differs from the specimen supplied" and/or "no image found-signature" and/or "incomplete signature / illegible", the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act is not maintainable. Hence, a case is made out to exercise powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in favour of the petitioner.

Error on the face of record

2009 14 SCC 663

2006 4 SCC 78

1997 8 SCC 715

Section 62 - Damages - Sale of Goods - Freedom to contract - conditions

MANU/GJ/0642/2004 - Suraj Enterprises


MANU/MH/0300/2000 - MSEB v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.
MANU/MH/0085/1958: AIR 1958 Bom 291.


MANU/KA/0020/1958 : AIR 1958 Kant 10 - KCN Gowda v. Molakram Tekchand 
distinction between conditions implied by law and conditions provided by contract

Indemnity v. Damages: distinction

AIR 1938 Rangoon 359
AIR 1928 Madras 43

Appointment of Provisional Liquidator - Factors to be considered

Darshan Anilkumar Patel v. Gitaneel Hotel Pvt Ltd, [1994] 81 Comp Cases 805

Parallel Remedies - Stay of proceedings

Jai Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1977 SC 898

a litigant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time.


See also:


Awadh Bihari Yadav  v. State of Bihar, AIR 1996 SC 122
Arunima Baruah v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 120
Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, 2010 (3) BomCR 44

BMC 'person' required to take license

Manibhai Tulsibhai Patel v. MCGM, 1965 MhLJ 458: (1964) 66 BomLR 677

A person required to take a license, could be landlord or tenant.