Supreme Court of India Judgements

46830 Judgements hosted as on 05/08/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cheque Dishonour

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…

Acquittal Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of Cheque – Acquittal -The High Court’s judgment, which upheld the acquittal, was based on the absence of valid documentary evidence of any enforceable debt or liability – Both appellate courts found no evidence of an “enforceable debt or other liability,” which is crucial for the petitioner’s case under Section 138 – The courts applied the principle of balance of probabilities and concluded that the respondent’s defence was plausible – The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, finding no perversity in the appellate courts’ findings and no point of law warranting interference.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

2024 INSC 288 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISES — Appellant Vs. KAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…

Cheque Dishonour

“Civil vs. Criminal Standards: Supreme Court Overturns Dishonoured Cheque Conviction” – Supreme Court noted the difference in standards of proof in civil and criminal proceedings and emphasized that the criminal court should not be bound by the civil court’s decree in this case – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the criminal proceedings, and ordered the return of damages imposed by the lower courts to the appellant.

Apr 3, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PREM RAJ — Appellant Vs. POONAMMA MENON AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

You missed

Education

Haryana School Education Act, 1995, Section 22 — Civil Court Jurisdiction — Ouster of jurisdiction by statute must be express or implied — Section 22 only ousts jurisdiction where Government or its officers have power to adjudicate — Recovery of fees by a school is not a power conferred on Government/authorities — Civil court jurisdiction not ousted in matters of reasonable fee recovery.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C I P C

Penal Code, 1860 — Section 498A — Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband — Allegations in FIR were vague, general, and filed one year after admitted separation of the parties — No specific instances of cruelty were mentioned — Criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of FIR — Court can quash FIR if allegations, taken at face value, do not constitute any offence — Vague and general allegations of marital discord, without specific instances, do not prima facie constitute an offence under Section 498A IPC.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw
I P C POCSO

Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 376(2), 450 — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Sexual assault on a minor — Evidence of prosecutrix — Conviction can be based solely on the prosecutrix’s testimony if it inspires confidence — Corroboration of testimony of prosecutrix is not a requirement of law, but a guidance of prudence — Minor contractions or small discrepancies should not be a ground for throwing out the evidence of the prosecutrix.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw
C P C

State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 — Section 29 — Liability of Financial Corporation taking possession of industrial unit for dues — Corporation acts as a trustee, liable only to the extent of funds in its hands after settling its dues, not personally liable. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 80 — Notice to Government or public officer — Mandatory requirement before instituting suit — Failure to issue notice or obtain leave renders suit not maintainable and decree a nullity, even if impleaded later.

Aug 9, 2025 sclaw