Whether debt was barred by limitation or not in cheque bounce cases, is a question of evidence: SC
“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”.
NI Act
Husband cannot be summoned in cheque bounce case for cheque issued by wife as sole proprietor of a firm: Allahabad High Court
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
Initiation of IBC proceedings does not absolve Company Directors/Signatories of criminal liability under Section 138 NI Act: SC
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of nature of proceedings under the two Acts are quite different and would not intercede each other.
Section 138 NI Act| Supreme Court sets aside Madras High Court’s reversal of acquittal in a cheque bouncing case
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.
Compilation of Important Judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts regarding Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
by Swarnendu Chatterjee† Anwesha Pal†† and Yashwardhan Singh†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 11
Dishonour of Cheque – S. 141 NI Act| Complainant only supposed to have general knowledge of person(s) in charge of company/firm; Burden on Director/Partner to prove their innocence: SC
“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.”
Can accused be tried under NI Act as well as under IPC on similar set of allegations or will it amount to double jeopardy? Larger SC bench to decide
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Nazeer and JK Maheshwari*, JJ has called upon a larger bench to decide if on similar
Right to cross-examination cannot be denied as a punishment for failure to deposit interim compensation under Section 143A NI Act: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: In a case where an offender under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was denied the
Whether concurrent prosecutions under S. 138, NI Act and S. 420, IPC, will amount to double jeopardy? J&K and Ladakh HC analyses
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petitions, the question that came up before that Court
Allahabad High Court | Sections 4 & 5 CrPC only applicable to proceedings under Special Acts; not when criminal jurisdiction is invoked
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker and Gautam Chowdhary, JJ. dismissed a petition which was filed praying
Dishonour of cheque| Partner cannot be held to be vicariously liable when partnership firm is not tried as primary offender: SC
Supreme Court: Explaining the law on vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the bench of Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna*,
Obligation of Thumb Impression and Signature, both, for a Pro-Note under Negotiable Instruments Act: Mandatory or Not? Read Madras HC’s verdict
Madras High Court: Teekaa Raman, J., observed that there is no mandatory provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act that both the signature
Ori HC considers whether any difference exists between a case where default is committed and prosecution immediately launched and where prosecution is deferred till cheque presented again gets dishonored for second or successive time?
Orissa High Court: R K Pattnaik, J. dismissed the petition and held that the ground on which the petition is raised is
Whether dishonour of cheques could have only given a cause of action to register an FIR for an offence under S. 420 IPC? MP HC answers
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Atul Sreedharan, J. allowed a petition which was filed for quashing of Crime which was registered for an
[NI Act] Kar HC decides contours of law in a classic case where cash of Rs 2 crore was borrowed as hand loan and a cheque obtained for the repayment of the same got dishonoured
Karnataka High Court: M. Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order regarding attachment of property and auction notification. The
Explained| Section 138 NI Act: Is the ‘debt incurred after the drawing of the cheque but before its encashment’ excluded from ‘debt or any other liability’?
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of the term ‘debt or any other liability’ under Section 138 of the NI Act, the bench
J&K and Ladakh HC | Dishonour of cheque; HC advices Criminal Courts to impose fine equivalent to amount of cheque plus at least 6% interest per annum
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjeev Kumar, J., held that the sentence of fine under Section 138 of N.I.Act must
Ker HC | Absence of salutation like M/s, Mr or Miss while drawing a cheque is immaterial for offence under S. 138 of NI Act; HC sets aside the acquittal, directs Trial Court to re-address the issue
Kerala High Court: Gopinath P., J., held that adding or omitting prefix like M/s, Mr And Mrs. while drawing the cheque is
Section 138 NI Act| Once settlement has been entered into, the complainant cannot pursue the original complaint: Supreme Court
The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint.