Section 138 NI Act Archives | Page 5 of 7

[S. 138 NI Act] P&H HC | Do sympathetic consideration have any role to play in the matter of sentencing? Court discusses

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Sudhir Mittal, J., while addressing an issue with regard to the dishonour of cheque held that, “Offence

Case Briefs High Courts

[Dishonour of Cheque] MP HC | Director/MD/JD/other officers and employees of a company can not be prosecuted under S. 138 of NI Act unless the company is impleaded as an accused

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J., while addressing a matter with regard to dishonour of cheque held that, Director/Managing Director/Joint Director/other

Case Briefs High Courts

Kar HC | No legal basis for Family Courts insisting on personal presence of petitioners at the time of filing cases; Presence of complainant while filing S. 138 NI Act case not necessary

Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, CJ and S Vishwajith Shetty, J., dealt with the following issues through the

Case Briefs High Courts

Jhar HC | Object of NI Act is primarily compensatory; Court can discharge accused on full payment and amicable settlement

Jharkhand High Court: Amitav K. Gupta, J. acquitted the petitioners of the charges on an amicable settlement between the parties. The relevant

Case Briefs High Courts

Del HC | Proceedings under S. 138 NI Act quashed against Independent Non-executive Directors not involved in day-to-day affairs of Company

Delhi High Court: Manoj Kumar Ohri, J., while allowed the present petition and quashed the impugned order summoning the petitioners under Section 138

Case Briefs High Courts

HP HC | While exercising power under S. 147 of NI Act the Court can proceed to compound the offence even after recording of conviction

Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J. compounded and quashed the impugned judgments and acquitted the petitioner of the charge framed under

Case Briefs High Courts

Raj HC | Court allows compromise entered into by parties since offences under NI Act are compoundable offences

Rajasthan High Court: Vijay Bishnoi, J., allowed a criminal revision petition seeking to set aside judgments convicting the petitioner with regard to

Case Briefs High Courts

Ker HC | Court sets aside sentence of conviction and demands payment of fine in matter of dishonour of cheque under S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act

Kerala High Court: R. Narayana Pisharadi J., allowed a criminal revision petition in part in a matter relating to Section 138 of

Case Briefs High Courts

Del HC | Ss. 143-147 NI Act lay down Special Code for trial, recourse to S. 482 CrPC as a substitute for initiating second revision petition denied

Delhi High Court: Rajnish Bhatnagar, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the Sessions Court whereby it had dismissed the review

Case Briefs High Courts

Ker HC | Court dismisses petition, affirms petitioner guilty in offence punishable under S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

Kerala High Court: R. Narayana Pisharadi, J., dismissed a revision petition which was filed against the judgment of the trial and the

Case Briefs High Courts

Bom HC | Appeal filed against conviction under S. 138 NI Act cannot be dismissed for non-payment of fine without going into merits of appeal

Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., allowed a criminal revision application filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the

Case Briefs High Courts

Bom HC | S. 139 NI Act imposes evidentiary burden and not a persuasive burden; acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove capacity to give loan

Bombay High Court: K.R. Shriram, J., dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had acquitted the

Case Briefs High Courts

Bom HC | The day on which accused refused to accept the demand notice is to be excluded while counting the 15 days period contemplated under S. 138(c) NI Act

Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., while allowing a writ petition, quashed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,

Case Briefs High Courts

Ker HC | Acquittal from offence under S. 138 NI Act upheld where cheque not drawn on account maintained by the accused

Kerala High Court: R. Narayana Pisharadi, J. rejected this petition in which the petitioner prayed to file an appeal against the judgment

Case Briefs High Courts

Del HC | S. 138 NI Act; EPF society facilitating purchase of houses on behalf of its members held not liable for dishonour of cheques issued to the builder

Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., allowed a petition wherein directions were sought for quashing the complaint case filed against the petitioner

Case Briefs High Courts

Bom HC | Dishonour of a cheque issued as a mere guarantee does not attract punishment under S. 138 NI Act

Bombay High Court: K.R. Shriram, J., dismissed a criminal appeal filed against the order of the trial court whereby the accused was acquitted

Case Briefs High Courts

Del HC | Limitation provided under S. 468 CrPC not applicable to S. 138 NI Act

Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., dismissed a criminal petition wherein the petitioner sought quashing of the summoning order passed by the

Case Briefs High Courts

Del HC | Closure of bank account of accused prior to issuing of cheque is a matter for trial; taking of cognizance under S. 138 NI Act sustained

Delhi High Court: Anu Malhotra, J. dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby the petitioner was summoned on

Case Briefs High Courts

Bom HC | Interference with issuance of process under S. 138 read with S. 141 NI Act declined where Directors had resigned, but the resignation was not approved

Bombay High Court: S.S. Shinde, J. refused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate whereby process was issued against the applicants (directors

Case Briefs High Courts

Del HC | Complaint under S. 138 NI Act dismissed for non-prosecution restored considering that clerk of complainant’s counsel noted wrong date

Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J. allowed a petition filed against the order of the trial Judge whereby the petitioner’s complaint filed for