Category: Dishonour of Cheque

A collection of all the Judgements which are related to Dishonour of Cheques.

DELHI HIGH COURT – IF THE SIGNATURES ON THE CHEQUES ARE ADMITTED BY THE ACCUSED THEN THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ACCUSED THAT THE AMOUNT AND NAME OF THE DRAWEE WERE NOT FILLED IN BY THE ACCUSED DOES NOT HAVE ANY FORCE IN THE EYES OF LAW

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 16.11.2016 If the signatures on the cheques are admitted by the accused, it matters little if the name of the payee, date and amount are filled up at a subsequent point in time and therefore the contention raised by the accused that the amount and name of the Drawee were not filled in by...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – WHETHER A POST-DATED CHEQUE GIVEN AS “SECURITY” AND MENTIONED IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT IS COVERED BY SECTION – 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 OR NOT?

Supreme Court of India Date of Judgement: 19.09.2016 Whether the dishonour of a post-dated cheque given for repayment of loan installment which is also described as “security” in the loan agreement is covered by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or not? The agreement recorded that post-dated cheques towards payment of installment of loan (principal and interest) were...

DELHI HIGH COURT – SECURITY CHEQUE – THE SECURITY CHEQUE MAY BE ENFORCED IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE OF THE DEBTOR TO PAY THE DEBT OR DISCHARGE OTHER LIABILITY ON THE DUE DATE

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 14.05.2015 It makes no difference whether, or not, there is an express understanding between the parties that the security may be enforced in the event of failure of the debtor to pay the debt or discharge other liability on the due date. Even if there is no such express agreement, the mere fact that the...

DELHI HIGH COURT – BAILABLE OFFENCE & DECLARATION OF PROCLAIMED OFFENDER UNDER SECTION 82 & 83 OF CR.P.C & SECTION 174A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 22.05.2014 The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ complainant lodged FIR under Sections 325/34 IPC and Vide order dated 09.12.2010, learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi issued process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. against Respondent No. 2 and directed for publication in one leading newspaper having circulation in the concerned area. The Respondent No....

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT SECTION 138 – COMPLAINT CAN BE FILED EVEN AFTER SECOND NOTICE

Supreme Court of India Date of Judgement: 10.09.2013 Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 – Complaint can be Filed Even after Second Notice This matter was referred before the larger Bench by order dated 25th March, 2009. The question referred to the larger Bench was : “whether the action of the appellant was time-barred under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act or not...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT SECTION 138 -WHETHER THE COMPLAINT FILED IS WITHIN LIMITATION OR NOT

Supreme Court of India Date of Judgement: 26.08.2013 Whether the complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act is within limitation or not…… from the date on which the cause of action arose under clause (c) of the proviso to Section 138 of the NI Act? …. Whether for calculating the period of one month …. under Section 142(b),...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT SECTION 138 – FILING OF COMPLAINT AFTER SECOND NOTICE

Supreme Court of India Date of Judgement: 26.09.2012 In the result, we overrule the decision in Sadanandan Bhadran’s case (supra) and hold that prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of the cheque is also permissible so long as the same satisfies the requirements stipulated in the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The reference is answered...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT SECTION 138 – PROSECUTION OF PERSON IN CHARGE OF A COMPANY IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE COMPANY AS AN ACCUSED

Supreme Court of India Date of Judgement: 27.04.2012 In this Criminal Appeal the common proposition of law that has emerged for consideration is whether an authorised signatory of a company would be liable for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without the company being arraigned as an accused. These two appeals were initially heard by a two-Judge Bench and there was difference of...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – A CHEQUE ISSUED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF GUARANTOR AS SECURITY ALSO WOULD FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 138 OF NI ACT

Supreme Court of India Date of Judgement: 12.08.2002 The security cheques also would fall within the purview of the Section 138 of NI Act and a person could not escape his liability, as such, when there is existence of debt on the date of presentation of the cheque and the security cheques issued are dishonoured, the accused would be liable under...