A collection of Judgements which are related to Cheque Bounce by Supreme Court of India and Delhi High Court.
A Company must have numerous Directors however, it is not necessary that all Directors must be engaged in the day to day affairs of the Company and therefore, the Directors who have not signed a cheque on behalf of the Company cannot be prosecuted U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Apex Court in numerous judgments, held that a Director...
Can a cheque be presented for encashment if the holder of cheque has received part payment from the drawer before presentation of the cheque? The answer to the above question is that a cheque can be presented for encashment by the holder of the cheque even if the part payment has been received by the holder after the issuance of...
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of limitation in lieu of the COVID -19 pandemic, suo moto took cognizance of the difficulties to be faced by the litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/ appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation and therefore through its order dated 23.03.2020 extended the period of limitation in all...
Yes the Court has the power to close the proceedings of a cheque bounce case without the consent of the Complainant. The question for consideration before the Supreme Court of India in M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. versus Kanchan Mehta was that if the accused is willing to deposit the cheque amount can the proceedings be closed...
The question that arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was that what happens to the money receivable by the Complainant in the form of Compensation when the Accused undergoes jail term, in default of the compensation, under such circumstances is the Compensation still recoverable by the Complainant? The Hon’ble Supreme Court observes that that the gravity of offences...
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 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 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 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....
