NI Act

Payment of interim compensation discretionary
Case BriefsSupreme Court

“If the word ‘may’ is read as ‘shall’, it will have drastic consequences, as in every complaint under Section 138, the accused will have to pay interim compensation up to 20 per cent of the cheque amount and such an interpretation will be unjust and contrary to the well-settled concept of fairness and justice, exposing the provision to the vice of manifest arbitrariness.”

failure to establish debt adjustment
Case BriefsDistrict Court

The complainant woefully failed to account for the amount of Rs 6,11,071/- which was due on him towards the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the amount represented on the cheque in question was a legally recoverable debt.

calcutta high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court delved into the legalities surrounding the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, emphasizing that it is a “rebuttable presumption”.

presumption under section 139 of NI Act
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court stated that the petitioner failed to adduce any cogent evidence to prove that the cheque in question was not aimed at discharging any legally enforceable debt.

allahabad high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court noted that the Supreme Court has issued several directions to deal with the pendency of dishonor of cheque cases and for their expeditious disposal

Erstwhile Directors
Op EdsOP. ED.

by Sugandh Kochhar†

debt barred by limitation
Case BriefsSupreme Court

“The question of debt barred by limitation is to be decided on basis of evidence as, limitation is a mixed question of law and fact”.

allahabad high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court said that in the eye of law, wife and husband have separate entity. The present case is not a case that the wife, sole proprietor of the Firm had provided the cheque signed by or on behalf of the applicant

Section 138
Case BriefsSupreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the scope of nature of proceedings under the two Acts are quite different and would not intercede each other.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited and that the Madras High Court ‘could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.

Negotiable Instruments Act
Op EdsOP. ED.

by Swarnendu Chatterjee† Anwesha Pal†† and Yashwardhan Singh†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 11

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Ankur Mishra†

Case BriefsSupreme Court

“Quashing of a complaint is a serious matter. Complaint cannot be quashed for the asking. For quashing of a complaint, it must be shown that no offence is made out at all against the Director or Partner.”

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The bench of SA Nazeer and JK Maheshwari*, JJ has called upon a larger bench to decide if on similar

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In a case where an offender under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was denied the

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petitions, the question that came up before that Court

Allahabad High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary, JJ. dismissed a petition which was filed praying

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: Explaining the law on vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the bench of Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna*,

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: Teekaa Raman, J., observed that there is no mandatory provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act that both the signature

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Orissa High Court: R K Pattnaik, J. dismissed the petition and held that the ground on which the petition is raised is