Representative image BENGALURU: In a cheque bounce case, the Karnataka high court has ruled that trial courts cannot levy fines exceeding twice the dishonoured cheque amount.Justice V Srishananda made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by Mahadevi, an agriculturist from Banahatti in Bagalkot district. In Nov 2007, Mahadevi bought two trailers for Rs 3.8 lakh after she was allowed a Rs 5,000 discount. She issued a cheque for the trailers, but the cheque was dishonoured. Following this, the seller registered a cheque bounce case. On May 8, 2017, the magistrate’s court at Banahatti convicted her, directing her to pay Rs 7.6 lakh as compensation to the seller and Rs 5,000 as defraying expenses to state govt.Mahadevi’s appeal against the order was dismissed by the district court, and she moved the HC. She said the trailers had not been delivered to her, but Justice Srishananda noted Mahadevi had failed to establish her claim. The judge directed Mahadevi to pay Rs 7.6 lakh as compensation to the complainant, but set aside the order regarding Rs 5,000 to be paid towards defraying expenses, ruling that no state machinery was involved in the transaction.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideos’India-US Trade Deal Removes Competitive Disadvantage’: Former Indian Envoy To WashingtonIndia-US Trade Deal: Trump Says India Won’t Buy Russian Oil; Rahul Gandhi Accuses PM of Selling Out’Symbol Of Negativity’: Goyal Rains Fire On Rahul Gandhi After US-India Trade Deal, Parl RuckusIndia-US Trade Deal: Moscow Contradicts Trump’s Claim On New Delhi ‘Stopping’ Russian Oil Imports’Called Me Yaar, Threw Papers’: TDP MP Tenneti Slams Eight Suspended Lok Sabha MPs’Dairy, Agriculture Protected’: Piyush Goyal Outlines ‘Historic’ US-India Trade Deal, Lauds PM ModiBudget 2026: Defence Expert Flags Committed Liabilities, Calls For Battlefield TransparencyPak Defence Minister Khawaja Asif Admits Terror Rooted In Corruption, Vindicates India In ParliamentGold, Silver Under Pressure After Peaks: Should You Invest And Hold Precious Metals Or Sell Off?India Moves To Secure Chicken’s Neck As Underground Rail Project Targets Strategic Vulnerabilities123Photostories9 nature-inspired baby girl names that mean ‘new beginning’How to make dhaba-style dal makhani at homeThere are only 6 countries whose names begin with the letter ‘U’Archana Puran Singh and Parmeet Sethi’s love story: From a ‘fling’ to three decades of togethernessA look into Yuvika Chaudhary and Prince Narula’s parenthood journeyFrom prehistoric sharks to unusual flowers: What’s inside the world’s largest cave6 common mistakes people make while cooking cauliflower6 luxury electric cars that blend sustainability with opulence‘Love Island’, ‘Love Is Blind’, and more: Reality TV couples who are still together in 2026Diljit Dosanjh makes Indian-style Masala Bread Omelette and we are absolutely loving it123Hot PicksBudget 2026Gold Silver PricesCigarette Prices HikeIndia US TradeIncome Tax CalculatorPublic holidays February 2026Bank Holidays februaryTop TrendingArtemi PanarinMLB Trade RumorsAyesha CurryKayla NicoleNHL Injury UpdatePuka NacuaRussell WilsonDenver Nuggets vs Detroit PistonsNikola JokicGold Riyadh Players Ranking
BENGALURU: In a cheque bounce case, the Karnataka high court has ruled that trial courts cannot levy fines exceeding twice the dishonoured cheque amount.Justice V Srishananda made the observation while partly allowing an appeal filed by Mahadevi, an agriculturist from Banahatti in Bagalkot district. In Nov 2007, Mahadevi bought two trailers for Rs 3.8 lakh after she was allowed a Rs 5,000 discount. She issued a cheque for the trailers, but the cheque was dishonoured. Following this, the seller registered a cheque bounce case. On May 8, 2017, the magistrate’s court at Banahatti convicted her, directing her to pay Rs 7.6 lakh as compensation to the seller and Rs 5,000 as defraying expenses to state govt.Mahadevi’s appeal against the order was dismissed by the district court, and she moved the HC. She said the trailers had not been delivered to her, but Justice Srishananda noted Mahadevi had failed to establish her claim. The judge directed Mahadevi to pay Rs 7.6 lakh as compensation to the complainant, but set aside the order regarding Rs 5,000 to be paid towards defraying expenses, ruling that no state machinery was involved in the transaction.
