Supreme Court of India Judgements

46905 Judgements hosted as on 12/10/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cheque Dishonour

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…

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,…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Sections 451 & 457 — Release of Seized Property — Trial Court rejecting release application for iron ore on grounds of applicant’s failure to substantiate ownership — High Court setting aside trial court’s order without examining correctness of its finding on ownership — High Court should have either agreed with trial court’s finding on ownership or recorded reasons for disagreeing — Failure to do so warrants interference and remand.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw
Evidence Act

Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 50 — Opinion as to relationship, when relevant — Opinion expressed by conduct of person with special knowledge on relationship is relevant — Essentials are court’s opinion, expression through conduct, and person having special knowledge — Conduct alone is not proof but an intermediate step to infer opinion — Opinion must be proved by direct evidence — Court needs to weigh evidence to form its own conclusion; Trial Court erred in treating opinion of witnesses as fact rather than evidence to be weighed and failed to independently assess credibility.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Corruption

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Bail — Anticipatory Bail — Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against High Court’s rejection of bail in anticipation of arrest — Custodial interrogation not required — Appellant may be admitted to bail in anticipation of arrest upon arrest, subject to terms and conditions fixed by the trial court — Appellant directed not to dissuade witnesses from disclosing facts to authorities.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 366 — Death Sentence Reference — Sentencing Procedure — Conviction and death penalty were pronounced on the same day without a proper inquiry into aggravating and mitigating circumstances, psychological evaluation, or jail conduct report. This haste violated established sentencing principles and vitiated the death sentence.

Oct 12, 2025 sclaw