Supreme Court of India Judgements

47010 Judgements hosted as on 01/01/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cheque Dishonour

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.I38—Dishonour of Cheque—Legal enforceable debt—Cheques were issued towards repayment of capital infused by the complainant in the company of accused—Cheques were dishonoured with memo of ‘Stop payment’ and “Insufficient funds”–Accused admitted his signatures—Presumption under S.I39 would operate

Dec 16, 2018 sclaw

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2829 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1744 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rohinton Fall Nariman Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Indu Malhotra Criminal Appeal No(S).…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of cheque–Vicarious liability–Offences by companies–Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company– Responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable . Dishonour of cheque–Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred.

Dec 14, 2018 sclaw

2010(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 737 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu Criminal Appeal Nos. 320-336 of 2010…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 138–Dishonour of the cheque–Sentence–Appellant facing criminal prosecution for the last 7 years–Appellant a petty businessman–He paid the hefty amount of compensation as a penalty for dishonour of the cheque issued by him.–No material placed on the record to indicate that the appellant had earlier committed any such or similar offence–Substantive sentence of imprisonment, set aside–Sentence of  fine of Rs.1,000/- maintained and imposition of compensation in the sum of Rs.35,000/- also maintained.  

Nov 11, 2018 sclaw

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 188 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarun Chatterjee The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh Nijjar Criminal Appeal No. 2337 Of…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – Complaint – Locus standi of complainant – A person can maintain a complaint provided he is either a “payee” or “holder in due course” of cheque – Appellant/complainant could not produce any document to show that he was proprietor of firm – Appellant did not make any attempt to adduce additional evidence at appellate stage also – Mere statement in affidavit in this regard, is not sufficient to meet requirement of law – Appellant failed to produce any documentary evidence to connect himself with the firm

Nov 4, 2018 sclaw

(2011) 74 ACC 573 : (2011) ACD 458 : (2011) 104 AIC 202 : (2011) 2 AICLR 348 : (2011) AIR(SCW) 1773 : (2011) 3 AIRBomR 126 : (2011) 2…

You missed

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 302 read with 34, 148, and 341 — Murder —Appeal against reversal of acquittal — Appellate court’s duty in overturning acquittal — Trial court’s acquittal based on “imaginary and illusionary reasons” and misappreciation of evidence, including attributing undue significance to minor contradictions and perceived manipulation of delayed FIR submission, justifies reversal by High Court. (Paras 31, 45, 46, 52)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw
Service

Service Law — Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Rules, 2001 — Rule 18(b) — Recruitment: Disqualification — Second Marriage — Rule 18(b) disqualifies a person who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with another person from appointment to the Force — Respondent, a CISF Constable, was dismissed from service for marrying a second time while his first marriage subsisted, violating Rule 18(b) — Held, the rule is a service condition intended to maintain discipline, public confidence, and integrity in the Force, and is not a moral censure — The rule is clear and mandatory, and the maxim “dura lex sed lex” (the law is hard, but it is the law) applies — The statutory rule prescribing penal consequences must be strictly construed — Dismissal upheld. (Paras 2, 3, 7, 9)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 366A, 372, 373, 34 — Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITPA) — Section 3, 4, 5, 6 — Child Trafficking and Commercial Sexual Exploitation — Evidence of Minor Victim — Appreciation of Evidence — Concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court regarding conviction for procuring and sexually exploiting a minor victim upheld — Prosecution case substantially corroborated by testimony of minor victim (PW-13), decoy witness (PW-8), independent witness (PW-12), and recovery of incriminating articles — Minor contradictions in testimony (e.g., about forcible sexual intercourse causing injury, or apartment topography) do not vitiate the prosecution case, as the consistent version of the victim establishes procurement for sexual exploitation. (Paras 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw
Bail Declined Cr P C

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439(2) — Cancellation of Bail — Annulment of Bail — Distinction — Cancellation of bail is generally based on supervening circumstances and post-bail misconduct; Annulment of an order granting bail is warranted when the order is vitiated by perversity, illegality, arbitrariness, or non-application of mind — High Court granted bail ignoring prior cancellation of bail due to commission of murder by accused (while on bail) of a key witness in the first case, and failed to consider the gravity of offenses (including under SC/ST (POA) Act) and threat to fair trial — Such omissions and reliance on irrelevant considerations (existence of civil dispute) render the bail order perverse and unsustainable, justifying annulment by the Supreme Court. (Paras 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.4, 12.5)

Jan 1, 2026 sclaw