Supreme Court of India Judgements

46980 Judgements hosted as on 12/12/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cheque Dishonour

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138, Section 142(2), Section 142A — Territorial Jurisdiction for cheque dishonour cases (post-2015 Amendment) — Account Payee Cheques — Jurisdiction for complaints under Section 138 concerning cheques ‘delivered for collection through an account’ (Account Payee Cheques) lies exclusively with the court having local jurisdiction over the branch of the bank where the payee maintains the account (payee’s home branch) — This position is anchored in Section 142(2)(a) read with its Explanation — The legal fiction in the Explanation deems a cheque delivered at any branch of the payee’s bank to have been delivered at the payee’s home branch for jurisdictional purposes, overriding the actual place of delivery. (Paras 39, 54, 58, 59, 76)

Nov 30, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 1362 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JAI BALAJI INDUSTRIES LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. M/S HEG LTD. ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ. ) Transfer…

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.…

You missed

Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 — Section 436-A — Applicability — Undertrial detention exceeding half of maximum sentence — Section 436-A mandates release of undertrial prisoners who have undergone detention extending up to one-half of maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence, unless further detention is ordered with reasons — Exception: This provision is explicitly inapplicable to offences for which the punishment of death has been specified as one of the possible punishments under that law. (Paras 7, 9.2, 11)

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw
Narcotics

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) — Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) — Conviction for possession of commercial quantity of ganja (23.500 kg) and conspiracy — Appeal against concurrent findings of lower courts — Absence of independent witnesses — Failure to secure independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case, especially under the NDPS Act, if the testimonies of official witnesses are consistent, coherent, and credible, and no material doubt is raised in cross-examination. (Paras 12, 18, 20, 21, 22)

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw
General Insurance Service

Insurance Scheme — PMGKY Package — Requisition of Services of Private Doctors — The invocation of special laws (Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897) and implementing regulations (Maharashtra COVID-19 Regulations, 2020), coupled with executive actions such as the NMMC notice directing private dispensaries to remain open under threat of penal action (IPC S. 188), constitutes a “requisition” of services for doctors and health professionals under the scheme requirements — A narrow interpretation of “requisition” requiring specific individual appointment letters is rejected due to the compelling, emergent circumstances of the pandemic. (Paras 23-26, 30(a))

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw
Property Matters Rent

Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 — Scope and Applicability — Overriding Effect over State Rent Control Legislations — Whether PP Act 1971 prevails over State Rent Control Acts (such as Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 or Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) regarding eviction from ‘Public Premises’ defined under Section 2(e) — Both PP Act 1971 and State Rent Control Acts are special laws; conflict resolved by legislative purpose and policy, which dictates that PP Act 1971 must prevail — A person in unauthorised occupation of public premises cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Control Act. (Paras 2, 5.6.3, 5.7.1, 5.8.2, 13(i), 13(ii), 13(iv))

Dec 12, 2025 sclaw