Supreme Court of India Judgements

467750 Judgements hosted as on 06/05/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cheque Dishonour

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.…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Sections 138 and 141 – Dishonour of cheque – Insufficient funds – Liability – According to Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a director who resigns from a company before a cheque is issued cannot be held responsible for cheque bouncing offenses.

Feb 25, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJESH VIREN SHAH — Appellant Vs. REDINGTON (INDIA) LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No…2024…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI) – Section 138 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 73 – Cheque Bounce – Comparison of signature – In an appropriate case, the certified copy of the specimen signature maintained by the Bank can be procured with a request to the Court to compare the same with the signature appearing on the cheque by exercising powers under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

Feb 4, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AJITSINH CHEHUJI RATHOD — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Cheque Bounce – Default in payment of agreed amount – Violation of undertaking given before the High Court and further violated the condition contained in the order granting extension of time to comply – Order cancelling the order of suspension of sentence and bail is upheld.

Jan 11, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SATISH P. BHATT — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. )…

You missed

Service

Under Rule 17, CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, prior contractual service counts towards pension upon subsequent regularisation, subject to the employee opting to refund/forgo specified monetary benefits.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
I B C

Service of an IBC Section 8 demand notice upon Key Managerial Personnel at the Corporate Debtor’s registered office constitutes valid service on the company, emphasizing substance over technical form.

May 6, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

High Court’s inherent power to quash criminal proceedings precludes conducting a ‘mini trial’ by assessing evidence credibility; consistency requires acknowledging coordinate bench decisions involving co-accused.

May 5, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Quashing FIR under 482 CrPC impermissible when complaint prima facie discloses cognizable offences; allegations accepted true, investigation not thwarted based on delay, civil suit, or witness status if complicity alleged.

May 5, 2025 sclaw