A collection of all the Judgements of Negotiable Instruments Act.
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...
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: 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 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 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 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...
