Section 138 NI Act

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

Hot Off The PressNews

Appellate Courts where appeals are pending against judgments in complaint under S. 138 NI Act to make an effort to settle dispute through mediation: Bom HC issues Practice Directions

In compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision dated 16-4-2021, passed in (2021) 10 SCC 598 “In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under

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 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

Banking and Negotiable InstrumentsOp EdsOP. ED.

Territorial Jurisdictional Constraints of Cheque Bounce Cases

by Baglekar Akash Kumar*

Case BriefsLegal RoundUpSupreme Court (Constitution/Larger Benches)Supreme Court Roundups

Yearly Round-up 2021| Supreme Court Constitution Bench

Unlike the year 2020, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench has functioned limitedly in the year 2021, with the number of judgments delivered

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 BriefsHigh Courts

For summoning accused under S. 138 NI Act, recording of statements under Ss. 200 and 202 is required? All HC decides

Allahabad High Court: Sameer Jain, J., decided that whether for summoning an accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, recording

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 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 BriefsDistrict Court

Condonation of Delay | Litigants who indulge in frivolous litigation, clog arteries of justice delivery system: Read Court’s opinion on vexatious litigation

Saket Courts, New Delhi: Anuj Agrawal, Additional Sessions Judge-05, while addressing the present matter, expressed that, A litigant who takes liberty with

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Dishonour of Cheque | Not filling details in cheque, Non-filing of ITR by complainant, Handing over cheque as security, etc.: Delhi Court discards all defence, orders conviction under S. 138 NI Act  

Saket Courts, Delhi: Swati Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate (South) NI Act, convicted the accused for an offence under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque)

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Section 138 of NI Act| No hard and fast rule that a cheque issued as security can never be presented by drawee: Supreme Court 

“A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance.”

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Presumption and Rebuttal under NI Act: Read Court’s verdict discussing onus of proof and nature of defence where “payment stopped by drawer”

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru: Vani A. Shetty, XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, addressed a

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Mere denial is useless, Presumption under S. 138 NI Act can be rebutted only by leading cogent evidence: Court holds accused guilty where “payment stopped by drawer”

Saket Courts, New Delhi: Swati Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate reiterated what is expected of an accused to rebut the statutory presumption against him