dishonour of cheque

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Can Director of a company be automatically, vicariously liable for commission of an offence on behalf of company under S. 138 NI Act? Patiala House Courts answers

Patiala House Courts, New Delhi: Shreya Arora Mehta, Metropolitan Magistrate, while addressing a matter with regard to Section 138 of the Negotiable

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Dishonour of Cheque | If a cheque is not honoured by issuer and even after a legal notice he doesn’t pay, he is bound to face criminal trial: Del HC

Delhi High Court: Rajnish Bhatnagar, J., dismissed a matter revolving around the dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

Case BriefsHigh Courts

To prove that cheque amount was larger than debt due, can defence of Issuer be looked at stage of issuing summons? Del HC explains

Delhi High Court: While addressing a matter revolving around Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Subramonium Prasad, J., held that

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Vicarious Liability of Directors of Company for offences committed under S. 138 NI Act: Person claiming to not being able to manage business due to his age, could this be accepted as defence? Del HC answers

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., addressed a matter pertaining to vicarious liability of directors of the company alleged for offences under

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Can only a sole proprietor be held liable under S. 138 NI Act for dishonour of cheque drawn on account of sole proprietorship concern? Tis Hazari Court decodes

Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi: While deciding a matter under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Devanshu Sajlan, MM-05 (NI

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Law on Cheque Dishonour | Merely because cheques in question are security cheques, would that save accused from clutches of law under S. 138 NI Act, in case of admitting taking loan against cheques? Court answers

Rohini Court, North-West, Delhi: Ritika Kansal, MM(NI) reiterated the settled position of law that, “…an accused has to prove his defence by

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Whether proceedings under Ss. 138 and 141 of NI Act can be initiated against corporate debtor during moratorium period? Madras HC answers

Madras High Court: N. Sathish Kumar, J., while addressing a matter with regard to the dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Daughter-in-law accuses father-in-law of offence under S. 138 NI Act. Here’s the detailed account of whether father-in-law gave the cheque to daughter-in-law or was it taken without his knowledge || Saket District Court decides

Saket District Court, Delhi: Sonam Singh, MM (NI Act) acquitted the accused who was charged with an offence under Section 138 of

Case BriefsHigh Courts

[S. 138 NI] Telangana HC | A joint account holder cannot be prosecuted unless and until he/she is a signatory to subject cheque

Telangana High Court: Shameem Akhter J. allowed criminal petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner/A.2 on the ground that it is

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Court holds accused guilty under S. 138 NI Act where he failed to rebut statutory presumption even when complainant didn’t produce documentary evidence to prove debt

XVIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: Manjunatha, XVII Addl. C.M.M., found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of

Case BriefsHigh Court Round UpHigh CourtsLegal RoundUp

Delhi High Court’s Exhaustive Year-End RoundUp | Amazon v. Future Retail, Rakesh Asthana’s appointment, Feeding of Stray Dogs, 5G Technology, Delhi Riots & more

From major rulings like Amazon v. Future Group to 22 Guidelines on Feeding of Stray Dogs, Delhi High Court delivered some very

High Court Round UpLegal RoundUp

Media Trial, Sexual Assault, Judicial Over-Reach, Hate Speech, COVID-19 Updates and much more covered in over 90 topics | Bombay High Court’s Year-End Roundup 2021

Let’s sail into these 124 Judgments carefully selected and briefed in the year 2021.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Magistrate required to exercise judicious discretion before ordering interim compensation, S. 143-A NI Act not mandatory: Kar HC

Karnataka High Court: Rajendra Badamikar, J., reversed an order of the Magistrate which had directed the petitioner accused to deposit 20% of the

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Dishonour of Cheque | Is it mandatory for trial court to award interim compensation under S. 143-A NI Act on mere invocation thereof? Del HC decides whether S. 143-A is directory or mandatory?

Delhi High Court: Anu Malhotra, J., held that the provision of Section 143A of the NI Act, 1881 is directory in nature

Case BriefsDistrict Court

When does burden of proof shift to accused to rebut statutory presumption in cheque bounce cases under S. 138 NI Act? CMM Court considers

Court of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: Bhola Pandit, XX Addl. CMM, convicted a person who presented a cheque to

Case BriefsDistrict Court

“Account closed” and Cheque returned: Is it a reason sufficient for convicting a person under S. 138 NI Act? Read detailed decision of CMM Court, Bangalore

Court of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: In light of cheque being returned by the bank due to “Account Closed”

Case BriefsHigh Courts

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

Case BriefsDistrict Court

What is the consequence of complainant’s failure to explain the occasion for issuance of cheque in his favour? How does it affect S. 138 NI Act complaint? Del Court answers

South-West, Dwarka, Delhi: Mridul Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate –09, on noting a very weak case of the complainant and not being able to

Case BriefsDistrict Court

If a cheque was issued in favour of complainant, would she still be required to prove loan transaction as she would have been in civil trial recovery? Court explains

Dwarka Courts, New Delhi: Medha Arya, MM (NI Act-03), resolved the dispute pertaining to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Section 138 NI Act| Can’t defeat the complaint merely because it does not elaborate upon Managing Director’s authorisation: SC

Supreme Court: In a case relating to dishonour of cheques where it was alleged that the complaint was filed by the managing