Gross Injustice - Alternative Remedy argument should give way to Art 226

State of Tripura v. Manoranjan Chakraborty (2001) 10 SCC 740

Cheque bouncing

A. Can a person be convicted under S. 138 NI Act due to a mismatch of signature?

  

     Yes. 3 cases to substantiate the same

1. Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat  (2012) 13 SCC [para. 16, para. 16.1, para. 16.2, para. 30, para. 31]  
2. Om Prakash Singh v. State of UP (2015) 89 ACC 497 [para. 12-16] 
3. Sushil Kr. Mondal v. Probodh Dihingia (2015) 5 GLR 825 [Page 827 relevant]

B. Can a person be convicted under S. 138 NI Act if cheque bounces due to "account closed"?

Yes, he can be. "Account closed" would amount to returning the cheque unpaid because the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque as envisaged u/S. 138 of the Act. 

(As held in the case of NEPC Micon Ltd. v. Magma Leasing Ltd. [Pages 253, 254 relevant]) 

Power of High Court to cancel bail

Gulabrao Baburao Deokar v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 16 SCC 190 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 232 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 1116 at page 204

27. Thus it could certainly be said that the order passed by the Sessions Judge was an order passed in breach of the mandatory requirement of the proviso to Section 439(1) CrPC. It is also an order ignoring the material on record, and therefore without any justification and perverse. As held by this Court in Puran v. Rambilas [(2001) 6 SCC 338 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1124] , the High Court does have the power under Section 439(2) CrPC to set aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order granting bail. This is an independent ground for cancellation as against ground of the accused misconducting himself.

Constitution of India — Art. 129 — Civil contempt — Change in law after inter partes decision has attained finality:Subsequent change in law is not a ground on which obedience/implementation of the final inter partes judgment can be avoided, witheld or refused. Final inter partes order of court must be complied with despite later change in law. [Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. v. Rajesh Verma] [(2014) 5 SCC 551]

[(2014) 5 SCC 551] 

Mere reference to another contract containing arbitration Clause is not enough to incorporate the arbitration clause itself

2018 4 SCC 281

Supreme Court will not ordinarily interfere with interim orders

2018 4 SCC 298

Power under Section 21 of General Clauses Act not available for varying quasi judicial orders

(2018) 4 SCC 494

  The general power, under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, to rescind a notification or order has to be understood in the light of the subject matter, context and the effect of the relevant provisions of the statute under which the notification or order is issued and the power is not available after an enforceable right has accrued under the notification or order. Moreover, Section 21 has no application to vary or amend or review a quasi judicial order. A quasi judicial order can be generally varied or reviewed when obtained by fraud or when such power is conferred by the Act or Rules under which it is made. (See Interpretation of Statutes, Ninth Edition by G.P. Singh page 893).