{"id":381369,"date":"2026-04-17T17:00:01","date_gmt":"2026-04-17T11:30:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=381369"},"modified":"2026-04-18T16:19:06","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T10:49:06","slug":"delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Delayed Cheque Presentation in Absence of Any Reasonable Explanation Amounts to Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> While considering this appeal by Canara Bank (the appellant) challenging the decision of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) directing the appellant to pay 10 per cent of the loss incurred to the respondent due to delayed cheque presentation by the appellant for clearing or collection within the validity period; the Division Bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan*<\/span>, JJ., held that a bank receiving cheques for collection, acts as an agent of the customer and is under an obligation to exercise due diligence in presenting the instruments within the prescribed validity period. Failure to do so results in the instrument becoming stale and in the absence of any reasonable explanation, would result in negligence in the discharge of banking duties which would constitute deficiency in rendering service within the meaning of the consumer protection law.<\/p>\n

Background and Legal Trajectory<\/h3>\n

The respondent has a savings bank account with the appellant and on 29 May 2018, she deposited two CTS cheques into this savings bank account. Both the CTS cheques were issued in favour of the respondent by Assotech Limited and drawn on Vijaya Bank.<\/p>\n

The appellant credited the two cheque amounts into the aforesaid savings bank account of the respondent on 1 June 2018. The transactions were recorded as indicated by the accounts clearing section of Vijaya Bank. However, on the same day, both the cheque amounts were debited from the respondent’s account with the caption “online cheque return”. Later in the day, respondent received SMS notifications on her registered mobile number stating that the cheque amounts were debited from her account.<\/p>\n

The respondent received another SMS that the cheque for Rs 94,73,900 which was deposited on 29 May 2018 was returned due to “connectivity failure”. Thereafter, the appellant deposited this cheque into the respondent’s account on 5 June 2018 by deducting certain amount on account of collection charges. However, the said cheque amount was debited once again with the caption “online cheque return”. Subsequently, the said cheque was returned to the respondent on 5 June 2018 itself along with a return memo with the endorsement “instrument outdated\/stale”. This very process occurred with another cheque for Rs 11,36,868. On both the occasions, collection charges at the rate of Rs 177 were debited by the appellant from the account of the respondent.<\/p>\n

The respondent alleged that delayed cheque presentation by the appellant for clearing or collection to the drawee bank within the validity period caused the cheques to expire; therefore, due to the appellant’s negligence, the respondent incurred loss of Rs 1,06,10,768<\/span> and deprived the respondent from availing the legal remedies against the drawer of the cheques, Assotech Limited, including the remedy under Section 138<\/a>, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881<\/a> (NI Act).<\/p>\n

The respondent then filed a consumer complaint under Section 21(a<\/span>)(i<\/span>)<\/a>, Consumer Protection Act, 1986<\/a> (CP Act) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and seeking compensation along with interest. The NCDRC allowed the complaint by holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and directed the appellant to pay 10 per cent of the total amount of Rs 1,06,10,768 to the respondent along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint within two months.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved with the aforestated verdict by NCDRC, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Contentions over Delayed Cheque Presentation<\/h3>\n

Referring to Section 75-A<\/a>, NI Act<\/a>, the counsel for the appellant contended that delayed presentation of cheques would be excused if such delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the holder of the cheque and not imputable to his default, misconduct and negligence; though the section provides that as soon as the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentment should be made within a reasonable time. Insofar as the present case was concerned, the delayed cheque presentation was caused because of the strike in the bank which was beyond the control of the appellant.<\/p>\n

Per contra, the respondent’s counsel stated that the impugned judgment did not require any interference.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment of issues regarding Delayed Cheque Presentation<\/h3>\n

Perusing the facts of the case, arguments forwarded by the respective counsels and the impugned judgment by NCDRC, the Court noted that it has to consider two issues, namely, the correctness or otherwise of the finding of the NCDRC that there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant on account of delayed cheque presentation and whether the compensation awarded was reasonable or excessive.<\/p>\n

The Court began its analysis by referring to the relevant statutory provisions in NI Act, namely, sections related to bills of exchange and cheques such as Sections 5, 6, 7, 25, 30, 64. The Court further referred to provisions related to presentment of cheques, namely, Sections 72, 75-A, 84, 85 and 105 and finally Section 138 which deals with dishonour of cheques.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Section 138 of NI Act Explained: Cheque Bounce Notice, Procedure & Landmark Rulings<\/a><\/p>\n

The Court then referred to provisions in the CP Act, namely, Section 2(g<\/span>) defining “deficiency” and provisions in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019<\/a> (2019 Act), namely, Section 2(42) which defines “service”. From a comparison of the definition of “service” in the previous CP Act and the present 2019 Act, the Court found that the definition of “service” has been retained; however, in the 2019 Act, it has been made more specific by including facilities in connection with telecom. Section 2(11)<\/a> of the 2019 Act<\/a> defines “deficiency”. The Court pointed out that the definition of the expression “deficiency” in the 2019 Act has been made more specific. While retaining the broad elements constituting deficiency, fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance required to be maintained or undertaken under a statute or a contract in relation to a service as provided in the previous enactment, the definition of “deficiency” has been made more inclusive by confining such fault, imperfection etc. to any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer; and including deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person from the consumer.<\/p>\n

The Court further delved into Section 73<\/a>, Contract Act, 1872<\/a>. The Court referred to Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd.<\/span> v. Software Technology Parks of India<\/span>, (2025) 7 SCC 757<\/a>, wherein Section 73<\/a>, Contract Act, 1872<\/a> was examined conjointly with Sections 55 and 74 and it was held that in a contract whether time is of the essence or not, if the contractor fails to execute the contract within the specified time, the contract becomes voidable at the option of the promisee and the promisee would be entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. However, in case of a contract where time is of the essence, the contract becomes voidable on account of the contractor’s failure to execute the contract within the agreed time. The promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by such breach of the contract unless he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to claim compensation. This is made more specific in Section 73. Section 74 on the other hand contemplates a situation where penalty is provided for and quantified as compensation for breach of contract. In such a case, the party complaining of the breach is entitled to compensation whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby but such compensation shall not exceed the quantum of penalty stipulated.<\/p>\n

Examining the facts of the present case, the Court found both cheques by the respondent were deposited into her savings bank account. On the basis of the directions issued by the Central Information Commission (CIC), the appellant furnished to the respondent the cheque return memos which showed that the cheques were returned on 30 May 2018 for the reason “bank on strike”. The Court stated that the bank employees were indeed on strike on 30 and 31 May 2018. NCDRC had noted that the cheques were returned on the evening of 1 June 2018 which clearly contradicted what was stated in the return memos dated 30 May 2018. The Court further pointed out that the NCDRC has noted that no explanation was provided by the appellant as to why no specific reason was provided for this return. The validity of the cheques was only till the working hours of 2 June 2018 which was a working day with 3 June 2018 being Sunday.<\/p>\n

It was pointed out that the appellant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation as to why the cheques could not be re-presented before the bank of the drawer again on 2 June 2018 which was a working day. The Court stated that Section 64(1)<\/a>, NI Act<\/a> states that promissory notes, bills of exchange and cheques are required to be presented to the maker, acceptor or drawee thereof respectively for payment by or on behalf of the holder which would exonerate the holder from any liability.<\/p>\n

The Court explained that delayed cheque presentation caused due to circumstances beyond control of the holder is indeed covered under Section 75-A<\/a>, NI Act<\/a>. However, the moment the cause of delay ceases to operate, presentation must be made within a reasonable time<\/span>. “What is a reasonable time for the purpose of presentment for acceptance or payment of a cheque is provided for in Section 84(2) as well as Section 105<\/a>, NI Act<\/a> which states that for determining what is a reasonable time, regard shall be had to the nature of the instrument, the usage of trade and of bankers and the facts of the particular case<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

The Court thus stated that since a bank receiving cheques for collection, acts as an agent of the customer and is under an obligation to present the instruments within the prescribed validity period; therefore, the failure to do the same in the absence of any reasonable explanation, would amount to deficiency in service under consumer protection law.<\/p>\n

The Court therefore did not find any good ground to interfere with the decision of NCDRC and expressed its agreement with the view taken by the NCDRC that there was negligence on the part of the appellant vis-a-vis delayed cheque presentation within the validity period, leading to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant qua the respondent.<\/p>\n

Regarding the issue of quantum of compensation that may be awarded to the respondent for such deficiency in service, the Court observed that even though NCDRC’s approach of awarding 10 per cent of the face value of the cheque amount as token compensation, was not wholly erroneous, it was opined that the compensation fixed by NCDRC appeared to be on the higher side by applying the standard of reasonable compensation having regard to the peculiar facts of the present case. 10 per cent of the face value of the cheque amount as a token compensation would not accurately reflect the nature of the loss suffered by the respondent because the loss itself is indeterminate despite the finding of deficiency in service.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the Court modified the compensation at 6 per cent of the total amount of Rs 1,06,10,768 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing the complaints.<\/p>\n

[Canara Bank<\/span> v. Kavita Chowdhary<\/span>, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 591<\/a>, decided on 15-4-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For Appellant(s):<\/span> Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR Mr. Vinay Singh Bist, Adv. Mr. Prateek Kushwaha, Adv. Ms. Arani Mukherjee, Adv. Mr. Sahas Bhasin, Adv. Mr. Yashu Rustagi, Adv.<\/p>\n

For Respondent(s):<\/span> Mr. Ashish Pandey, AOR Mr. Vinod Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Swantra Rai, Adv. Mr. Shubham Saxena, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Prateek Rai, Adv. Mr. Anmol Goyal, Adv. Mr. Aishwarya Sharma, Adv.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Upholding NCDRC’s decision holding Canara Bank liable for delayed presentation of cheques, Supreme Court explained that a bank acts as a customer’s agent and is under an obligation to exercise due diligence in presenting the instruments within the prescribed validity period.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":381386,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[102531,102533,102534,42724,102532,11521,102535,102530,37644,5363],"class_list":["post-381369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-bank-as-agent","tag-bank-liability","tag-banking-duties","tag-canara-bank","tag-cheque-collection","tag-deficiency-in-service","tag-delayed-cheque-presentation","tag-delayed-presentment-of-cheques","tag-justice-ujjal-bhuyan","tag-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nDelayed Cheque Presentation Without Reason is Deficiency in Service: SC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Supreme Court has held that Delayed Cheque Presentation by banks without any reasonable explanation, amounts to deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Delayed Cheque Presentation in Absence of Any Reasonable Explanation Amounts to Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court has held that Delayed Cheque Presentation by banks without any reasonable explanation, amounts to deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-04-17T11:30:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-18T10:49:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Delayed-Cheque-Presentation.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Delayed Cheque Presentation in Absence of Any Reasonable Explanation Amounts to Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/\",\"name\":\"Delayed Cheque Presentation Without Reason is Deficiency in Service: SC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Delayed-Cheque-Presentation.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-17T11:30:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-18T10:49:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"Supreme Court has held that Delayed Cheque Presentation by banks without any reasonable explanation, amounts to deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Delayed-Cheque-Presentation.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Delayed-Cheque-Presentation.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Delayed Cheque Presentation\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Delayed Cheque Presentation in Absence of Any Reasonable Explanation Amounts to Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Delayed Cheque Presentation Without Reason is Deficiency in Service: SC | SCC Times","description":"Supreme Court has held that Delayed Cheque Presentation by banks without any reasonable explanation, amounts to deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Delayed Cheque Presentation in Absence of Any Reasonable Explanation Amounts to Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court","og_description":"Supreme Court has held that Delayed Cheque Presentation by banks without any reasonable explanation, amounts to deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-04-17T11:30:01+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-18T10:49:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Delayed-Cheque-Presentation.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Delayed Cheque Presentation in Absence of Any Reasonable Explanation Amounts to Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/","name":"Delayed Cheque Presentation Without Reason is Deficiency in Service: SC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Delayed-Cheque-Presentation.webp","datePublished":"2026-04-17T11:30:01+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-18T10:49:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"Supreme Court has held that Delayed Cheque Presentation by banks without any reasonable explanation, amounts to deficiency in service under consumer protection laws.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Delayed-Cheque-Presentation.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Delayed-Cheque-Presentation.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Delayed Cheque Presentation"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/17\/delayed-cheque-presentation-without-reason-deficiency-in-service-sc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Delayed Cheque Presentation in Absence of Any Reasonable Explanation Amounts to Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Delayed-Cheque-Presentation.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":312627,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/01\/supreme-court-rejection-of-application-for-handwriting-expert-opinion-in-cheque-dishonour-case-section-138-ni-act-legal-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":381369,"position":0},"title":"When can an application for Handwriting Expert\u2019s Opinion in Cheque Dishonour Case be rejected? Supreme Court explains","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"February 1, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the appellant Court was right in rejecting the application of the accused seeking opinion of the handwriting expert in Cheque Dishonour case.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Cheque Dishonour","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Cheque-Dishonour.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":275450,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/10\/12\/dishonour-cheques-section-138-ni-act-legally-enforceable-debt-encashment-supreme-court-legal-research-updates-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":381369,"position":1},"title":"Dishonour of Cheques| Section 138 NI Act would not attract if cheque does not represent a legally enforceable debt at the time of encashment","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"October 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In the case where the Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 would deem to be committed if the cheque that is dishonoured does not represent the enforceable debt at the time of encashment, the bench\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Section-138-NI-Act-would-not-attract-if-cheque-does-not-represent-a-legally-enforceable-debt-at-the-time-of-encashment-1-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Section-138-NI-Act-would-not-attract-if-cheque-does-not-represent-a-legally-enforceable-debt-at-the-time-of-encashment-1-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Section-138-NI-Act-would-not-attract-if-cheque-does-not-represent-a-legally-enforceable-debt-at-the-time-of-encashment-1-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Section-138-NI-Act-would-not-attract-if-cheque-does-not-represent-a-legally-enforceable-debt-at-the-time-of-encashment-1-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/10\/Section-138-NI-Act-would-not-attract-if-cheque-does-not-represent-a-legally-enforceable-debt-at-the-time-of-encashment-1-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":220129,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/27\/fema-appellate-tribunal-active-involvement-and-intentional-aiding-must-be-present-in-order-to-constitute-an-offence-of-abetment\/","url_meta":{"origin":381369,"position":2},"title":"FEMA Appellate Tribunal | Active involvement and intentional aiding must be present in order to constitute an offence of abetment","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 27, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Appellate Tribunal for SAFEMA, FEMA, PMLA, NDPS & PBPT Act: Justice Manmohan Singh (Chairman) allowed an appeal challenging the impugned Judgment wherein the appellants were penalized for abetting illegal transfer of money. In the present case, the respondent had alleged that the appellant-Bank abettor in illegal and unauthorized dealing of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/05\/APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":374034,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/29\/multiple-complaints-under-s-138-ni-act-supreme-court-2026\/","url_meta":{"origin":381369,"position":3},"title":"Cheques Bounced? Supreme Court Confirms You Can File Multiple Complaints under S. 138 NI Act for the Same Transaction","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"January 29, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a cheque provided the statutory sequence of presentation, dishonour, notice, and failure to pay is complete.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"multiple complaints under S. 138 NI Act","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/multiple-complaints-under-S.-138-NI-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/multiple-complaints-under-S.-138-NI-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/multiple-complaints-under-S.-138-NI-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/multiple-complaints-under-S.-138-NI-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":256261,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/10\/29\/section-138-of-ni-act-security\/","url_meta":{"origin":381369,"position":4},"title":"Section 138 of NI Act| No hard and fast rule that a cheque issued as security can never be presented by drawee: Supreme Court\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"October 29, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":243909,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/15\/is-issuance-of-blank-cheque-and-signed-blank-stamp-paper-sufficient-to-attract-presumption-under-s-139-of-ni-act-supreme-court-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":381369,"position":5},"title":"Is issuance of blank cheque and signed blank stamp paper sufficient to attract presumption under S. 139 of NI Act? Supreme Court answers","author":"Editor","date":"February 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana, Surya Kant* and Aniruddha Bose, JJ., upheld the judgement of High Court of Judicature at Madras, whereby the order of acquittal of the Judicial Magistrate was reversed and the appellants had been convicted under Section 138 of the NIA, 1881. The\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=381369"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":381521,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381369\/revisions\/381521"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/381386"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=381369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=381369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=381369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}