Supreme Court of India Judgements

46925 Judgements hosted as on 22/11/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cheque Dishonour

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Quashing of proceedings — Cheques issued as security and not for consideration — Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) clearly stated cheques were for security purposes to show banks and not for deposit — Complainant failed to read the complete terms of MOU in isolation and misinterpreted it to claim cheques were converted into debt — Court empowered to consider unimpeachable documents at pre-trial stage to prevent injustice — Complaints under Section 138 NI Act liable to be quashed.

Nov 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1270 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. NAGENDRA Vs. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 and 141 — Dishonour of Cheque — Complaint against Chairman/Trustee of a Trust without impleading the Trust as an accused — Maintainability — Held, a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act is maintainable against a Trustee who has signed the cheque on behalf of the Trust, even if the Trust itself is not made an accused — The Trust does not possess independent legal status to sue or be sued.

Oct 11, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1210 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANKAR PADAM THAPA Vs. VIJAYKUMAR DINESHCHANDRA AGARWAL ( Before : Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…..of…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 139, 118 — Dishonour of cheque — Presumptions — Scope — Once execution/signature admitted, presumption arises that cheque was for consideration and discharge of legally enforceable debt — Burden initially on accused to rebut by raising probable defence — Mere plea of complainant’s financial incapacity, without documentary or independent evidence, not sufficient — Failure to reply to statutory notice, an adverse inference against accused — Defence that blank signed cheque given for obtaining bank loan, held unbelievable.

Oct 2, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1158 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SANJABIJ TARI Vs. KISHORE S. BORCAR AND ANOTHER ( Before : Manmohan and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 1755…

Cheque Dishonour

. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138, 141, 142, Proviso (b) — Dishonour of Cheque — Demand Notice — Validity — Requirement of notice to demand the “said amount of money” — “Said amount of money” refers to the cheque amount itself — Demand for an amount different from the cheque amount invalidates the notice — Typographical errors in the amount are not a valid defence as the provision is penal and requires strict compliance — Notice must be precise regarding the dishonoured cheque amount

Sep 21, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1133 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAVERI PLASTICS Vs. MAHDOOM BAWA BAHRUDEEN NOORUL ( Before : B.R. Gavai, CJI. and N.V. Anjaria, J. ) Criminal Appeal Nos….of…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of cheque — Territorial jurisdiction — Where a payee maintains his bank account in a particular branch and deposits cheques issued by the drawer for collection through that account, the complaint for dishonour of such cheques must be filed in the court having jurisdiction over the location of the payee’s bank branch, even if the cheques were presented at a different branch of the bank for the purpose of crediting the payee’s account.

Jul 27, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 897 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH CHIMANLAL SHETH Vs. JAGRUTI KEYUR RAJPOPAT ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal Nos.…

Cheque Dishonour

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 200 — Complaint — Amendment — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Power of Criminal Court to amend complaint — Amendments not alien to Cr.P.C. even post-cognizance, provided no prejudice to accused — Supreme Court in S.R. Sukumar and Modi Distillery cases allowed amendments to correct curable infirmities, even after cognizance.

Jul 27, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 899 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BANSAL MILK CHILLING CENTRE Vs. RANA MILK FOOD PRIVATE LTD. AND ANOTHER ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and K. V. Viswanathan,…

Banking Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 143A — Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court regarding the interpretation of Section 143A of the Act 1881 — The High Court had held that an authorized signatory of a company is not a “drawer” of a cheque within the meaning of Section 143A of the NI Act —The Supreme Court analyzed the provisions of the NI Act and the legal precedents on the subject, and concluded that the primary liability for an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act lies with the company itself, and the company’s management is only subsequently and vicariously liable — Therefore, it is only the company that is to be considered as the “drawer” of the cheque.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 551 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI GURUDATTA SUGARS MARKETING PVT. LTD. — Appellant Vs. PRITHVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO DESHMUKH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath…

Cheque Dishonour

Burden of Proof in Section 138 N.I. Act Cases — The court reaffirmed that once the issuance of a cheque and its dishonor for insufficiency of funds are established, a presumption arises under Sections 138, 139, and 118(a) of the N.I. Act that the amount mentioned in the cheque was legally due and payable by the drawer to the payee — The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption by producing satisfactory evidence.

Aug 18, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 602 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI SUJIES BENEFIT FUNDS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. M. JAGANATHUAN — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.…

Acquittal Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — The appellant lent Rs. 2,00,000 to the respondent, who issued a cheque as a guarantee — The cheque was dishonored due to insufficient funds — Whether the respondent committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act, 1881 and Section 420 of the IPC — The appellant argued that the respondent failed to repay the loan and intentionally cheated him — The respondent claimed the cheque was issued for security purposes to a third party and denied the loan transaction — The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s judgment that favored the respondent’s acquittal — The court found contradictions in the appellant’s statements and lack of evidence regarding the loan transaction — The court emphasized the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, 1881, and the burden on the respondent to rebut it — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent’s acquittal was upheld.

Aug 11, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 586 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRI DATTATRAYA — Appellant Vs. SHARANAPPA — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna and Augustine George Masih, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

You missed

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 37 read with Section 34 — Scope of Interference — Concurrent Findings — Statutory prohibition against re-appreciation of evidence — Challenges to arbitral award upholding 24% interest rate based on loan agreement terms dismissed by Single Judge and Division Bench; Supreme Court upholds affirmation — Re-appreciation of evidence on genuineness of loan agreements or terms, including interest rate, is prohibited under Section 34(2A) proviso, particularly when Arbitrator’s findings are concurrently upheld.

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw
Environment

Environmental Law — Environmental Clearance (EC) — Ex Post Facto Clearance — Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, Section 3 — While EC should ordinarily be prior, the EP Act does not entirely prohibit ex post facto EC — Grant of ex post facto clearance is permissible in exceptional circumstances, in strict compliance with rules, upon imposition of heavy penalties, where denial of approval would result in adverse consequences outweighing regularisation, and where project complies with or can be made to comply with environmental norms — Adopting a ‘balanced approach’ is necessary to protect economy and livelihood.

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw
Environment

National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 — Section 16(h) — Limitation period for appeal against Environmental Clearance (EC) — Communication of EC to “any person aggrieved” — The date of commencement of the 30-day limitation period (extendable by 60 days) starts from the earliest date on which the order granting EC is “communicated” to the aggrieved person by any of the duty bearers (MoEF&CC, project proponent, or Pollution Control Boards).

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw
Constitution Service

Constitution of India, 1950 — Articles 233, 235, 309, 32, 141, 142 — Higher Judicial Services (HJS) — Determination of Seniority — Source of Recruitment — Recruitment to HJS is through Regular Promotees (RP), Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE), and Direct Recruits (DR) — Supreme Court has jurisdiction under Article 142 and other provisions to lay down uniform guidelines for judicial services across the country, independent of High Courts’ control under Article 235, to ensure a unified and robust judiciary — Overarching guidelines framed do not foreclose powers of High Courts but establish a homogenous framework for superintendence over judicial services.

Nov 22, 2025 sclaw