Supreme Court of India Judgements

46800 Judgements hosted as on 29/06/2025 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Cheque Dishonour

Cheque Dishonour

CrPC) – Section 205 – Magistrate may dispence with personal appearance of accused – In any event there could be no justification for not dispensing with the personal appearance of the Appellants, when the Company had entered appearance through an authorized officer. HELD all directors summoned on the basis of a statement that they are in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company, without anything more, does not fulfil the requirements of Section 141 of the NI Act.

Aug 15, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH SUNITA PALITA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S PANCHAMI STONE QUARRY — Respondent ( Before : Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, JJ. ) Criminal…

Cheque Dishonour

Cheque – Quashing of complaint at a pre-trial stage – the accused may be given an un-merited advantage in the criminal process – –when the cheque and the signature are not disputed by the appellant – the accused will have due opportunity to adduce defence evidence during the trial, to rebut the presumption

Apr 28, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RATHISH BABU UNNIKRISHNAN — Appellant Vs. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh…

Cheque Dishonour

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Section 138 – Dishonour of cheque – When a cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by the drawee, it will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a consideration which is a legally recoverable amount; such presumption of course, is rebuttable by proving to the contrary – Onus is on the accused to raise a probable defence and the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is on preponderance of probabilities – Conviction under Section 138 of NI Act uphold.

Dec 12, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH K.S. RANGANATHA — Appellant Vs. VITTAL SHETTY — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI, A.S. Bopanna and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of cheque – Quashing of criminal proceedings -There are sufficient averments in the complaint to raise a prima facie case against them – It is only at the trial that they could take recourse to the proviso to Section 141 and not at the stage of issuance of process – It is evident that the principal grounds of challenge which have been set up on behalf of the appellants are all matters of defence at the trial –

Dec 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL TODI AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna,…

Cheque Dishonour

Security Cheque – Dishonour – A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance. ‘Security’ in its true sense is the state of being safe and the security given for a loan is something given as a pledge of payment. HELD the cheque which is issued as security would mature for presentation and the drawee of the cheque would be entitled to present the same. On such presentation, if the same is dishonoured, the consequences contemplated under Section 138 and the other provisions of N.I. Act would flow.

Oct 31, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SRIPATI SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS SON GAURAV SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R.…

Cheque Dishonour

Dishonour of cheque – Quashing of complaint – Mere fact that a suit is pending before the High Court challenging the validity of the compromise deed would furnish no cogent basis to quash the proceedings under Section 138 – Once the ingredients of Section 138 of the NI Act are fulfilled, the statute clearly stipulates that “such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence” -Question as to whether the liability exists or not is clearly a matter of trial . serious error ofSingle Judge in allowing the petition under Section 482 to quash

Oct 11, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH M/S GIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. MANOJ GOEL — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Vikram Nath and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

You missed

POCSO

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Section 4 — Section 376 (3) IPC — Rape — Conviction upheld — Evidence of victim’s mother and medical evidence — Reliability of victim’s mother’s testimony confirmed despite lengthy cross-examination, finding it natural and trustworthy and corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence — Medical evidence, though partially presented by defense, conclusively supported sexual assault, citing perineal tear and abrasions around anus

Jun 29, 2025 sclaw
Joint Family Property Will & Succession

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Section 6 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2005) — Retrospective application — Validity of pre-amendment sale deeds — The prohibition contained in the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not affect registered sale deeds executed prior to December 20, 2004 (date of introduction of the amending provision) — This principle aligns with the judgment in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1.

Jun 28, 2025 sclaw
Anticipatory Bail Cr P C

Judicial Process — Misuse of process — Challenging bail conditions previously offered voluntarily — Accused offering substantial deposits to secure bail and subsequently challenging the onerous nature of conditions or the counsel’s authority to make such offers — This practice is condemned for undermining the judicial process and preventing consideration of bail applications on their merits — Such conduct leads to setting aside of bail orders and remittal for fresh consideration.

Jun 28, 2025 sclaw
Cr P C

Social Media Posts — Content-Related Offenses — Retaliatory Action — Quashing of Proceedings — While the court made no final determination on the nature of the petitioner’s social media posts, it acknowledged the petitioner’s counsel’s submission that the tweets were ‘retaliatory’ and were made in response to an incident involving a social media influencer. This assertion formed part of the petitioner’s argument for quashing or consolidating the numerous FIRs, suggesting a motive beyond simple offensive content.

Jun 28, 2025 sclaw