Cheque Dishonour Archives - Supreme Court of India Judgements

June 2, 2026 10:26 am

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Sections 138 & 141 — Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) — Part III (Personal Insolvency) — Moratorium Provisions — Criminal Proceedings vs. Civil Liability — Dishonour of cheque is a criminal offence due to specific deeming fiction in Section 138, not merely a civil wrong for debt recovery, even though it arises from a debt — Held, moratorium under IBC Part III does not stay criminal proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 579 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DINESHCHAND SURANA Vs. UCO BANK ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and K. V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No….of 2026 (Arising…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) — Sections 138 and 141 — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Vicarious liability of office bearers — For a person other than the drawer or signatory of a dishonoured cheque to be prosecuted under Section 141 of the NI Act, it must be specifically averred in the complaint that such person was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or society at the time the offence was committed.

May 28, 2026 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S MANSI FINANCE (CHENNAI) LTD. Vs. M. LALITHA AND OTHERS ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Separate Causes of Action — Quashing of Complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Where multiple cheques are issued in relation to the same underlying liability, but are distinct instruments (drawn on different accounts, presented on different dates, and dishonoured separately), each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action under Section 138 NI Act — The fact that two complaints relate to the same transaction does not bar parallel prosecution, especially where the statutory requirements of presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment are fulfilled separately for each instrument — High Court erred in quashing one complaint on the ground that two parallel prosecutions for the same underlying liability amounted to an abuse of process of law, as this violated the principle of separate cause of action for distinct cheque instruments. (Paras 33, 35, 45(a))

Jan 11, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 40 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUMIT BANSAL Vs. M/S MGI DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS AND ANOTHER ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. )…

Cheque Dishonour

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 482 — Inherent powers of High Court — Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 (Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds) — Quashing of criminal proceedings — Scope of inquiry at pre-trial stage — When complaint discloses all necessary ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act, High Court should not conduct a roving inquiry into disputed questions of fact, such as whether the cheque was issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, especially in light of the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act — Quashing of complaint at the threshold by the High Court by appreciating evidence/materials is unwarranted where a prima facie case is made out.

Jan 4, 2026 sclaw

2025 INSC 1474 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S SRI OM SALES Vs. ABHAY KUMAR @ ABHAY PATEL AND ANOTHER ( Before : Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.…

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.…

You missed

Constitution

Constitution of India, 1950 — List II, Entry 34 — “Betting and gambling” — Whether confined to games of chance — The expression “betting and gambling” in Entry 34 cannot be split to mean that the staking angle alone constitutes “betting” and the chance element alone constitutes “gambling” — Both betting and gambling involve the aspect of staking money on an uncertain outcome — Merely because the risk element is commonly perceived as “taking a chance”, it cannot mean the expression covers only games of chance — The expression is a set composite expression and cannot be rewritten by Courts to read as “betting on gambling” — Such a judicial rewriting would constitute a clear constitutional aberration — State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala, AIR 1957 SC 699 (RMDC-I) and R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628 (RMDC-II), explained and distinguished.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

Constitution

Constitution of India — Articles 246A, 366(12), 366(12A), 265 — Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) — Sections 2(1), 2(31), 2(52), 7, 9, 15 — Central Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017 — Rules 31A, 31B, 31C — Schedule III, Entry 6 — Actionable claims arising from betting and gambling — Constitutional validity of levy of GST — Legislative competence of Parliament — Whether online gaming, fantasy sports and casino transactions involve betting and gambling — Whether actionable claims arise therefrom — Valuation of taxable supply.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

Constitution

Betting and Gambling — Essential ingredients — The essential element of “betting and gambling” lies in staking money or money’s worth upon uncertain outcomes — The character of betting and gambling does not depend exclusively upon whether the underlying activity is a game of skill or a game of chance, but upon the existence of stakes placed upon uncertain future contingencies — Consequently, even where the underlying activity involves substantial elements of skill, once participation is conditioned upon staking money or money’s worth upon uncertain outcomes, the resulting transaction acquires the character of betting and gambling within the framework of the GST legislation — Accordingly, online gaming activities, including fantasy sports and other games played on digital platforms involving staking upon uncertain outcomes, constitute betting and gambling for purposes of the GST framework.

May 31, 2026 sclaw

Anticipatory Bail Bail Declined

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 438 — Grant of Anticipatory Bail — Abuse of Authority by Law Enforcers — Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting anticipatory bail to police officers accused of misusing their authority, extorting money, and causing stress to a citizen and his minor daughter — The Court emphasized that in cases where there is a clear abuse of authority by law enforcement officials, the normal presumptions applicable to ordinary accused persons may not apply, and greater caution is warranted — Observations made by the Supreme Court were held to be prima facie and not to govern the trial

May 31, 2026 sclaw

Category: Cheque Dishonour

You missed