Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Law of NI Act PDF
Case Law of NI Act PDF
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction Presentation of cheque to the Bank - Whether it is the drawee bank or the collecting bank? Held, 'the bank' is the drawee bank and not the collecting bank - Jurisdiction lies in a Court not
at the place where cheque is presented for collection but at the place of drawee bank Complainant cannot confer jurisdiction on any Court by merely choosing to entrust the cheque
for collection to a bank of his choice. (M.S.Santhoshkumar Vs K.G.Mohanan), 2008(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 097 (KERALA) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 284 (KERALA)
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice Presumption of service of notice - Presumption arises when notice is sent by registered post Even when a notice is received back with an endorsement that the party has refused to accept,
still then a presumption can be raised as regards the valid service of notice. (Subodh S.Salaskar
Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Delay - Condonation - Insertion of proviso to S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the
Court to condone the delay - However, insertion of the proviso is not retrospective in nature.
(Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) :
2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086
#4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Amendment - Court has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the complaint petition at a
later stage. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011
(S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Necessary
ingredients of the offence are : (1) a cheque was issued; (ii) the same was presented; (iii) it was
dishonoured; (iv) a notice was served on the person sought to be made liable and; (v) despite
service of notice, neither any payment was made nor other obligations, if any, were complied
with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash
M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076
(S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086
#6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Service
of notice - Thirty days time ordinarily must be held to be sufficient for service of notice. (Subodh
S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent by
registered post with acknowledgment due to a correct address - Service of notice has to be
presumed. (M/s.Indo Automobiles Vs M/s.Jai Durga Enterprises & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 027 (S.C.)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent by
registered post to correct address of the drawer - Notice returned with endorsement must be
presumed to be served to the drawer and the burden to show that the drawee had managed to
get an incorrect postal endorsement letter on the complainant and affixed thereof have to be
considered during trial on the background facts of the case. (M/s.Indo Automobiles Vs M/s.Jai
Durga Enterprises & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 027 (S.C.)
#9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Directors - An allegation in the complaint that the named accused are Directors of the company
itself would usher in the element of their acting for and on behalf of the company and of their
being in charge of the company. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu &
Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR
2008 SC 3273
#10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Director - A person in the commercial world having a transaction with a company is entitled to
presume that the Directors of the company are in charge of the affairs of the company - If any
restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for
the Directors to establish it at the trial. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu
& Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) :
AIR 2008 SC 3273
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Directors - Resigned before cheques were issued - However, From No.32 was filed with the
Registrar of Companies much after the cheques were issued - Held, the effect of delayed
presentation before the Registrar of companies can only be decided after parties lead evidence Order quashing proceedings set aside. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu
& Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) :
AIR 2008 SC 3273
#12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Post dated
cheque - To constitute offence u/s 420 IPC fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the
accused must be at the inception and not at a subsequent stage - When the post dated cheques
were issued the accounts were operative - Even assuming that the account was closed
subsequently the same would not mean the appellant had an intention to cheat when the post
dated cheques were issued. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque Presumption - Rebuttal - The rebuttal would not have to be conclusively established - However,
evidence must be adduced in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the
defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable - Standard of reasonability
is that of a prudent man. (M/s.Coldspot Vs M/s.Naik Hotels & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES
070 (BOMBAY)
#14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation Awarded and paid - A duty is cast upon civil courts to take into account the sum paid or
recovered as compensation - Superior Courts can take into consideration such payments
received even after passing of decree by trial Court. (D.Purushotama Reddy & Anr. Vs
K.Sateesh), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 528 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 287
(S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 383 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3202
#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Twice the
amount of cheque - Court is competent to award sentence of fine equivalent to double the
amount of cheque - Provision of S.29 Cr.P.C. which limits the amount of fine to Rs.5, 000/- is not
applicable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Sandeep Mittal Vs Pardeep Bhalla), 2008(4)
CIVIL COURT CASES 116 (P&H)
#16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque Complaint - Delay - Condonation - 13 days delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take
a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice
having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to
the difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA)
#17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Amendment - Amendment sought with regard to date of presentation of cheque with the Bank
as well as memo of dishonour of cheque by the Banker of the accused - Held, complaint was
defective and this was not a mere technical defect - Such a defect goes to the root of the matter
which cannot be allowed to be amended. (V.K.Gupta Vs Manjit Kaur), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 139 (P&H)
#18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed
by power of attorney holder and not by payee - Power of attorney holder cannot be said to be
either the payee or the holder in due course - Summoning order set aside. (Amit Yadav Vs State
of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES
163 (ALLAHABAD)
#19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque Complaint signed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder
in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint remitted back - Trial Court to summon
the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such
Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs
State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD)
#20: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Plea that
date of service of notice not mentioned in complaint - Notice sent by registered post - There is
presumption of delivery of letter, properly addressed and sent by registered post unless
contrary is proved - Held, there is no force in the contention of accused. (Amit Yadav Vs State of
U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES
163 (ALLAHABAD)
#21: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Prosecution of Company, Chairman and Vice-President - Petition by Vice-President for quashing
of proceedings - Specific plea in complaint that Vice-President negotiated with the complainant
in respect of the transaction and held out assurances that liability would be cleared - It will be
decided during trial if Vice-President has acted on behalf of company i.e. accused No.1 or not Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Devender Raina Vs State & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 181 (DELHI)
#22: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused
convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.50,
000/- - Revision against - Cheque amount Rs.35, 300/- - Accused agreeable to pay the
compensation double the amount of cheque immediately - Accused to pay Rs.70, 000/- as
compensation to complainant and to suffer imprisonment till rising of Court. (Biswanath
Singhania Vs Kumud Ranjan Sinha), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 188 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(4)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 118 (CALCUTTA)
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque Compromise after conviction - Order of conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr.
Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H)
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque Compromise after conviction - Table appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted to offences under
Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs
Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H)
#25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of
complaint in default - Held, it would be too harsh on the petitioner to non suit him merely for his
non appearance on one date - Non appearance not intentional - Complaint restored.
(Purushotam Mantri Vs Vinod Tandon alias Hari Nath Tandon), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 064
(P&H)
#1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to
discharge liability of another person - Cheque dishonoured - Offence u/s 138 of the act is made
out. (Avtar Singh Vs Canara Bank), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (P&H)
#2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Two notices
served - Complaint silent as to first notice - Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of
charge. (M/s.Rishabh Nath & Ors. Vs State of U.P.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335
(ALLAHABAD)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - 'Account closed' Successive presentation - Makes no sense - Whenever cheque is dishonoured on ground of
account closed, payee cannot resort to successive presentation to save the limitation.
(Nanjundappa Vs Hanumantharayappa), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 375 (KERALA)
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures does not tally
with the specimen - Successive presentation - Makes no sense - Whenever cheque is
dishonoured on ground of 'signatures does not tally with the specimen', payee cannot resort to
successive presentation to save the limitation. (Nanjundappa Vs Hanumantharayappa), 2008(4)
CIVIL COURT CASES 375 (KERALA)
#5: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Complainant can choose to file the complaint only against the firm - A firm cannot possibly
contend that although it has been named as an accused it need not participate in the
proceedings only because the person incharge of the affairs of the company at the time of
commission of the offence has not been named as an accused. (Alfa Graphics Vs Arjun Kohli),
2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (DELHI)
#6: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Mere reference in the
complaint to 20 cheques as having been dishonoured cannot render the complaint bad in law or
not maintianble. (Alfa Graphics Vs Arjun Kohli), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (DELHI)
#7: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Complainant can choose to file a complaint only against the firm - Complainant may choose not
to proceed against the individual partners as accused either because he is not aware as to who
are the partners or is not interested in proceeding against the partners apart from the firm. (Alfa
Graphics Vs Arjun Kohli), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (DELHI)
#8: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Reduction in sentence Cheque amount of Rs.21 lakhs - Accused convicted and sentenced to 2 years RI and to pay
compensation of Rs.42 lakhs - Accused 77 years old and having health problem - Compensation
reduced to Rs.21 lakhs and sentence reduced till rising of Court. (R.Sridher Vs T.K.Rajendra Sha),
2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (MADRAS)
#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through
courier - Notice received back with endorsement of `Refusal' - There is presumption of service.
(R.Sridher Vs T.K.Rajendra Sha), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (MADRAS)
#10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Accused summoned - Some evidence recorded - Quashing of complaint sought at that stage Held, appreciation of evidence does not fall within the domain of proceedings u/s 482 Cr.PC. for
quashing of the complaint. (M/s.Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs The Tata Steel Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 422 (P&H)
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Delay - Accused summoned and thereafter some evidence recorded - Held, once the evidence is
already recorded in the complaint then it is not a fit case for quashing the complaint. (M/s.Atma
Tube Products Ltd. Vs The Tata Steel Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (P&H)
#12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - A civil suit for recovery of
money as well as a complaint u/s 138 of the Act is maintainable. (D.Purushotama Reddy & Anr.
Vs K.Sateesh), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 528 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 287
(S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 383 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3202
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Self drawn cheque - Given
to complainant in discharge of legal liability - Self drawn cheque comes within the expression
'Holder in due course' - Accused is guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (Avtar Singh Vs Canara
Bank), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (P&H)
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Defence - Failure on the
part of the accused to establish his case does not automatically be a ground to hold that the
prosecution has proved its case - U/s 101 Evidence Act the burden is on the prosecution to
prove its case and such burden is not discharged by showing that the accused's case is
improbable or false. (Jose Vs P.C.Joy), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA)
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Consisting of two partners - Cheque signed by both the partners - Complaint against firm and
both the partners - No pleading in complaint that at the time the offence was committed both
the partners were incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of business of the firm Held, when complaint is in relation to a firm of which there are only two partners, it is sufficient
when it is pleaded that the firm has two partners who are also arrayed as accused persons.
(Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA)
#16: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Pleading as to requirement of S.141 of the Act - Held, complaint has to be read as a whole - If
the substance of the allegations made in the complaint fulfills the requirements of S.141 of the
Act then complaint has to proceed and is required to be tried with - In construing a complaint, a
hypertechnical approach is not to be adopted. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty & Anr.),
2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA)
#17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable
debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Not necessary for accused to produce evidence - Accused can
discharge the onus placed on him even on the basis of material brought on record by the
complainant. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha &
Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY)
#18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable
debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Loan of Rs.25 lacs - Complainant himself was in debt - No
evidence produced to prove financial viability of complainant to raise such huge amount Conviction of accused merely because he admitted his signature on disputed cheque not proper
- It does not relieve complainant from proving pre-existing debt or legal liability to pay amount
shown in cheque. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha &
Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY)
#19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by way of
security - Plea that dishonour of such cheque does not attract criminal liability - There was
interpolation in amount written in numbers - Fact of interpolation corroborated by expert
evidence - Conviction without considering legal plea and without giving satisfactory reasons for
disbelieving fact of interpolation - Set aside - Matter remanded for decision afresh. (Sudhir
Kumar Bhalla Vs Jagdish Chand & etc. etc.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 496 (S.C.)
#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - (Smt.Shamshad Begum Vs
B.Mohammed), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 567 (S.C.)
#21: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Composite
notice of more than one cheque is valid. (Subhash Sahni Vs M/s.Auro Spinning Mills), 2008(4)
CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (H.P.)
#22: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Notice sent under
certificate of posting at correct address - Notice not received back - There is presumption of
service of notice. (First Learning Quest Private Ltd. Vs M/s Tera Construction Private Ltd.),
2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 578 (DELHI)
#23: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Legally enforceable
debt' - Lack of pleading - There is no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege
in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability - The burden of proving that there was no
existing debt or liability is on the accused which they have to discharge in the trial. (First
Learning Quest Private Ltd. Vs M/s Tera Construction Private Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES
578 (DELHI)
#24: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/s 139
- Available only when it is proved that cheque was drawn by accused - To draw a cheque it must
be prepared by the drawer himself or cause the relevant details in the cheque to be filled up by
another person under his instructions but the cheque shall be signed by the drawer himself Name of payee not written - No evidence that complainant entered his name as payee as per
instructions of accused - Held, a mere signature in the cheque or a writing of the amount or date
in the cheque is not sufficient to conclude that the cheque is drawn by the accused in favour of
the complainant. (Jose Vs P.C.Joy), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA)
#25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Civil suit also
filed for recovery of the cheque amount - Proceedings u/s 138 of the Act cannot be quashed on
ground of filing of civil suit for recovery of cheque amount. (M/s.Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs The
Tata Steel Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (P&H)
#1: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning on basis of
photocopies of cheque and bank memos - Summoning order suffers no illegality. (Laiq Ram Vs
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Court may
enforce order of payment of compensation by imposing sentence in default - Contention that
the substantive sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation could not
have been imposed rejected. (Kalim M.Khan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY)
#14: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint Payment not made at all - It causes no prejudice to the accused - Conviction upheld. (Krishan
Gupta & Anr. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (CALCUTTA)
#15: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Post dated cheque - Bank
account attached by Court - Accused not liable - Act of attachment of bank account of drawer
cannot be said to be a voluntary act of the drawer. (Vijay Choudhary Vs Gyan Chand Jain),
2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 712 (DELHI)
#16: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issuance of cheque
without having sufficient balance in the account of the drawer does not by itself tantamount to
the commission of an offence u/s 138 of the Act. (Vijay Choudhary Vs Gyan Chand Jain), 2008(4)
CIVIL COURT CASES 712 (DELHI)
#17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118-- - Presumption available u/ss 138, 139 &
118 are all rebuttable presumptions. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4)
CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY)
#18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque dishonoured with
endorsement 'present again' - Held, complainant need not to wait to present the same again
and can proceed with the prosecution of the accused. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast
Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY)
#19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Complaint must be filed by a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by
articles of association of the company. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4)
CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY)
#20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Filed by
power of attorney holder - Power of attorney given by one of the Directors - Held, complaint is
not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) - On such complaint no process could have
been issued and no conviction could have been imposed. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast
Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY)
#21: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Stop payment' - Offence
u/s 138 of the Act is committed. (Citichem India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Ltd.
& Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 784 (GUJARAT)
#22: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Non mention in
complaint as to reply given to statutory notice - Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground.
(Citichem India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 784 (GUJARAT)
#23: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - In reply to notice
offer made to make payment by giving other cheques - It is a conditional offer - Cannot be said
that drawer was ready and willing to make the payment - Complaint cannot be quashed on this
ground - Plea to be raised during trial. (Citichem India Ltd. & Anr. Vs Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical
Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 784 (GUJARAT)
#24: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors
- Being Director of the company a Director is not jointly and severally liable for the acts of the
company - No averment in complaint that at the time when offence was committed accused
No.2 to 7 were incharge and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of
the company - Complaint against accused 2 to 7 quashed. (Anoop Jhalani Vs State & Anr.),
2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 350 (DELHI)
for not less than 20 occasions after the death of the original complainant - Accused rightly
acquitted by trial Court. (S.Rama Krishna Vs S.Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. & Ors.), 2008(2) APEX
COURT JUDGMENTS 291 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 891 .(S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 196 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2066
#10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque alleged to
be issued at the time of joining the committee being run by complainant - Financial condition of
complainant not such as to lend an amount of Rs.80, 000/- - No offence is committed u/s 138 of
the Act when such a cheque is dishonoured. (Naranjan Lal Sharma Vs Usha Bansal), 2008(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 209 (P&H)
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Complaint against Chairman, Joint Managing Director and three Directors - Allegation that they
were officers and responsible for the affairs of the company - It is sufficient compliance within
the meaning of S.141 of the Act - Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no
averment they were incharge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the
company. (Paresh P.Rajda Vs State of Maharashtra), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 413 (S.C.)
: 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 192 (S.C.) : 2008(2)
KLT 983 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 2357
#12: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Accused
summoned being Directors of Company - Defence of accused that they had nothing to do with
the affairs of the company - Held, that complainant had pleaded in his complaint that petitioners
were directors of the company and were in-charge and responsible for the affairs and business
of the Company - No ground to quash the complaint. (R.L.Verma & Ors. Vs J.K.Verma & Ors.),
2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 084 (DELHI)
#13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors
- S.141 of the Act provides for a constructive liability - A legal fiction has been created thereby The statute being a penal one, should receive strict construction - It requires strict compliance
of the provision - Specific averments in the complaint petition so as to satisfy the requirements
of Section 141 of the Act are imperative - Mere fact that at one point of time some role has been
played by the accused may not by itself be sufficient to attract the constructive liability under
Section 141 of the Act. (DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs J.N.Sareen & Anr.), 2008(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 446 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 266 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 303 (S.C.) : 2008(3) RCR(CRL.) 152 : 2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3)
RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255
#14: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Accused
directed to pay double the amount of cheque instead of payment of cheque amount as ordered
by Courts below and in case of default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
(A.B.M.Raja Sah Vs B.M.S.Srinivasa Sah), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (MADRAS) : 2008(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402 (MADRAS)
#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Rebuttal of
presumption as to issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability - Complainant a
businessman not producing any account to prove advancement of loan - Failure to produce even
loan agreement - Presumption stands rebutted - To rebut presumption accused need not to lead
positive evidence - Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record. (Raman
Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB)
#16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint on the basis of
dishonour of cheque for the second time - Once cause of action has accrued to the complainant
at the time of dishonour of cheque, it is not open to complainant to present the cheque for the
second time to bring the matter in limitation - Complaint quashed. (Satish Kumar Vs Mohan
Singh Gidda), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 314 (P&H)
#17: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by Govt.
company - BIFR declared the company sick - No impediment in initiating proceedings u/s 138 of
the Act against company or its Directors. (M/s.Hindustan Cables Ltd. & Ors. Vs State Govt. of
NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 326 (DELHI)
#18: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of summoning order
- Magistrate cannot recall the summoning order - The only course available to an aggrieved
person is to challenge the summoning order by filing a petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (M/s.Hindustan
Cables Ltd. & Ors. Vs State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 326
(DELHI)
#19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of higher
amount than amount of cheque - It is not a statutory notice - Complaint quashed. (Gaurav Singh
Rathore & Anr. Vs M/s.Tai-Pan Traders Ltd.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 334 (P&H) : 2008(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 617 (P&H)
#20: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Non appearance of
complainant - Dismissal in default - Held, that great prejudice will be caused to complainant if
his complaint goes undefended particularly when the amount involved is Rs.4.27 lakhs Complaint restored. (M/s.Ambassador Cards Pvt. Ltd. Vs State & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 350 (DELHI)
#21: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company declared sick by
BIFR - Held, S.22 of SICA does not create any legal impediment for instituting and proceeding
with a criminal case u/s 138 of the Act - Summoning order upheld. (M/s.Aefloat Textiles (India)
Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s.Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 358 (BOMBAY)
#22: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Public servant - Sanction
for prosecution - Cheque issued by M.D. State Transport Corporation towards payment of
instalments or payment of loan - M.D. was performing only his official functions - Sanction for
prosecution is mandatory before cognizance of offence u/s 138 NI Act is taken - Prior sanction
for prosecution not taken - Summoning order passed by Magistrate u/s 138 of the Act set aside.
(K.Suresh Vs M/s.Lloyds Finance Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (DELHI)
#23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed and
verified by power of attorney holder - It is a defective complaint as complaint must be signed by
the complainant - However, it is a curable defect - Death of complainant before curing said
defect - Power of attorney holder sought leave of Court to prosecute the complaint on her behalf
- Held, that when the initial complaint itself was defective there arises no question of
substitution of legal heirs - Summoning order quashed. (Mr.Roy Joseph Creado & Ors. Vs
Sk.Tamisuddin), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 443 (BOMBAY)
#24: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures admitted
- Held, once signatures in the impugned cheques were admitted then there is presumption u/s
139 of the Act. (A.B.M.Raja Sah Vs B.M.S.Srinivasa Sah), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453
(MADRAS) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402 (MADRAS)
#25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Post dated
cheque - Director who resigned before presentation and dishonour of cheque cannot be
prosecuted. (DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs J.N.Sareen & Anr.), 2008(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 446 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 266 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 303 (S.C.) : 2008(3) RCR(CRL.) 152 : 2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3)
RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255
#1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Ink used in filling the body
of cheque different from ink used in appending signatures - Held, that filling up of the blanks in
cheque by itself does not amount to forgery. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 630 (P&H)
#2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - For application of the
provision of S.138 of the Act three conditions required to be fulfilled are : (i) that the cheque
must be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn;
(ii) that the payee makes a demand of the amount by giving notice in writing to the drawer of
the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information of dishonour of the cheque; and (iii) that
the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice - It is
only when these three conditions are satisfied that the provisions of section 138 would be
attracted. (Tajuddin M.Somji Vs Jivrai Raoji Gandhi & Jivraj Raoji & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 503 (BOMBAY)
#3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pre mature complaint -
Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by drawer of cheque Complaint not maintainable. (Tajuddin M.Somji Vs Jivrai Raoji Gandhi & Jivraj Raoji & Anr.),
2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 503 (BOMBAY)
#4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship firm Complaint filed against proprietorship firm through its proprietor - Complaint is maintainable so
long as the identification of human individual behind the curtain is possible without any mistake.
(Natesha Securities Vs Vinayak Waman Mokashi & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 537
(BOMBAY)
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship
concern - In a criminal complaint u/s.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the
name of the proprietary concern itself. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Power of Attorney holder can initiate
criminal proceedings on behalf of his Principal. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship
concern - Power of Attorney holder - Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of
attorney holder - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by proprietor - Held,
complaint is duly filed by the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra
Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship
concerned - Power of attorney holder - Sworn statement of attorney holder - Power of attorney
holder can be examined as the complainant when he is personally aware of the transactions,
and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance
& Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship
concern - Complaint u/s.138 of the Act - Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the
proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the `payee'; (ii) The proprietary
concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor; and
(iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power
of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of
Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship
concern - Complaint u/s 138 of the Act - Complaint can be filing by describing viz. (1) ABC, sole
proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ, a sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor
ABC or (3) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s
XYZ, a proprietary concern of Mr.ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr.DEF. (M/s.Shankar
Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586
(S.C.)
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Prosecution of signatory without prosecution of company itself - Difference of opinion as to
whether signatory only can be prosecuted without prosecution of company - In view of
difference of opinion matter referred to larger bench. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s.Godfather Travels &
Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.C.)
#12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Existence of a debt or
legally enforceable liability - Can only be decided after parties lead evidence - Proceedings
cannot be quashed on the ground of non existence of debt or legally enforceable liability.
(Abhay Prabhaker Lele Vs Raosaheb Mahaveer Chimanna & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
463 (BOMBAY) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 056 (BOMBAY)
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption Rebuttable presumption - Presumption that cheque was issued for a debt or liability is in favour
of holder of cheque - This is a rebuttable presumption which can be rebutted only by the person
who drew the cheque. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H)
#14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissal in
default - Complaint fixed for recording preliminary evidence - Non appearance of complainant Instead of dismissing the complaint in default Magistrate ought to have adjourned the complaint
to another date. (Danvanti Mutual Benefits Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 007 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (P&H)
#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan - Post dated cheque
issued - Amount not reflected in Income-tax return - Loan given from personal account - For this
reason complaint might not have felt the necessity to reflect the same in his income-tax return No interference in order of conviction. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 630 (P&H)
#16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount Rs.1.82
lakhs - Accused convicted and sentenced to one year RI and to pay fine of Rs.10, 000/- Accused facing trial since 1.9.2005 and has undergone more than 3 months of actual sentence Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit
Kumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H)
#17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Non bailable warrants
issued against accused as they failed to appear inspite of many opportunities given to them Case was fixed for recording statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. - Complaint dismissed for
inability of police to execute non bailable warrants entrusted to them on the ground that
complainant did not take steps for execution - Held, that if non bailable warrants entrusted to
police are not executed, Court has to take steps to see that they are executed by taking such
steps as are available to it - Appeal allowed - Order of Magistrate dismissing complaint set
aside. (Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Cotton Company Vs State of A.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 645 (A.P.)
#18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company - No averment as to how
and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business
of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning - Applicant had not
issued cheque in question to the complainant - No averment as to how appellant is responsible
for dishonour of cheque - Held, averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.141 of
the Act - Summoning order quashed. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD)
#19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint not
stating that on the date of commission of offence, applicant was in any way in-charge of and
responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Complaint against applicant
quashed. (Vinod Hingorani Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 675
(BOMBAY)
#20: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and
sentenced to six months and fine of Rs.1, 25, 000/- imposed and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days - Suspension of sentence - Sentence
suspended on condition of depositing amount of Rs.85, 000/- out of fine of Rs.1, 25, 000/- Condition modified and accused directed to deposit Rs.25, 000/- only. (Babu Singh Vs State of
Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (RAJASTHAN)
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Criminal
Court cannot compel complainant to file proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.
(Subramanian Vs Krishnakumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA)
#22: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued for time
barred debt - Attracts penal provision of S.138 of the Act - Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency
of funds - Accused convicted. (Sooryan Vs Sreedharan), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 763
(KERALA)
#23: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise in
revision - Offence under Act is compoundable - Complainant permitted to compound offence -
Accused acquitted. (Santosh Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
814 (RAJASTHAN)
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissal for
non appearance of complainant when complaint was fixed for recording preliminary evidence Provision of S.256 Cr.P.C. comes into play only when the summons have been issued on a
complaint for the appearance of the accused - It is not applicable at the preliminary stage when
only the complaint has been filed and the preliminary evidence is yet to be recorded. (Danvanti
Mutual Benefits Ltd. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 007 (P&H) :
2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (P&H)
#25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Liability of company
where substantive sentence is provided - A company can be proceeded against in a criminal
proceeding even where imposition of substantive sentence is provided for. (Aneeta Hada Vs
M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.C.)
#1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of
offence - Parties compounding offence during revision - Allowed - Conviction set aside.
(Surindera Rani Vs Smt.Kiran Bala & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (P&H) : 2008(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 208 (P&H)
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt Presumption is in favour of holder of cheque that it was issued to discharge debt or other
liability - Plea that cheque was stolen and misused can only be proved during trial - Proceedings
cannot be quashed. (Karanam Visweswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 038 (A.P.)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Offence u/s 138 is compoundable without
permission of Court. (Sabu George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New
Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA)
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Compounding of offence after verdict of
conviction and sentence becomes final - In such a case High Court can exercise its power u/s
482 Cr.P.C. as also under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution - In such a case power u/s 482
Cr.P.C. can be invoked after disposal of revision notwithstanding the bar u/s 362 Cr.P.C. (Sabu
George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 040 (KERALA)
#5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Payment after commission
of offence - Once the offence is committed, any payment made subsequent thereof, will not
absolve the accused of the liability of the criminal offence, though in the matter of awarding of
sentence, it may have some effect on the Court trying the offence. (Vishnu Bhat Vs Narayan
R.Bandekar & Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 052 (BOMBAY)
#6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Refusal - Refusal
to accept has always been considered as good service. (Vishnu Bhat Vs Narayan R.Bandekar &
Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 052 (BOMBAY)
#7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Termination of service of
employee - Accused No.1 Managing Director of company, accused No.2, and partner of firm,
accused No.3 - Complainant proved that accused issued the cheque to meet the liability of the
company and firm whose Managing Director/partner he was - Accused failed to prove that he
stood as surety by issuing the said cheque - Such plea not put forward to the complainant and it
was taken as an afterthought - Accused cannot escape his conviction - Accused directed to pay
compensation of Rs.20, 000/- to the complainant and in default to undergo SI for 3 months.
(Vishnu Bhat Vs Narayan R.Bandekar & Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 052 (BOMBAY)
#8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Notice after
dishonour of cheque issued from place `H' - Held, Court at place `H' has territorial jurisdiction to
entertain and try the lis between the parties. (M/s.A.K.Desai & Co. & Ors. Vs State of Punjab &
Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 059 (P&H)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Joint account - Account
could be operated by anyone - Non signatory of the cheque is not liable for the offence
committed u/s 138 of N.I. Act - Under S.138 of the Act, the person who is drawer of the cheque
can only be prosecuted and not the other except the contingencies mentioned u/s 141 of the
Act. (Smt.Bandeep Kaur Vs S.Avneet Singh), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (P&H)
#19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Joint account of
husband and wife - Husband issued cheque drawn to joint bank account to discharge his liability
- Wife neither having dealings with the petitioner nor drawer of cheque - Held, wife is not liable Proceedings against wife quashed. (Smt.Bandeep Kaur Vs S.Avneet Singh), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 134 (P&H)
#20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Parties
compromised during pendency of revision - Amount of cheque and damages paid - Conviction
and sentence set aside. (Gurmeet Singh Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144
(P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 075 (P&H)
#21: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issue of process - If
complainant makes prima facie averments in complaint such as : (a) Drawing of a cheque in
favour of the complainant and the cheque having been signed with a specific amount; (b)
Dishonour of cheque and intimation thereto by the concerned bank in writing; (c) Issuance of
demand notice by the Payee and its receipt by the drawer; (d) Failure of the drawer to pay the
cheque amount within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice and (e) The existence
of debt or other legally enforceable liability against which the cheque was drawn - Court has no
choice but to issue process order on recording verification of the complainant. (Sahakar
Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Nagari Gramin Sahakari Pathsanstha & Anr. Vs Subhash
Bhimrao Gavsane & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 149 (BOMBAY)
#22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Existence of debt or any other liability, loss of cheque and complaint to the bank and police
station and denying the liability of the cheque amount - All these issues can only be decided
after parties adduce evidence - No case made out to invoke jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Sahakar
Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Nagari Gramin Sahakari Pathsanstha & Anr. Vs Subhash
Bhimrao Gavsane & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 149 (BOMBAY)
#23: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan - Repayment in cash
without any receipt - Production of account books - Held, it is for the accused to prove that he
had made payment in cash - Documents required to be produced are not at all relevant for
deciding the controversy between the parties - Petition dismissed. (G.S.Mayawala & Anr. Vs Om
Prakash Mittal), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 158 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 221
(DELHI)
#24: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Production of account
books - Can be ordered only when it is necessary or desirable for the purposes of the trial.
(G.S.Mayawala & Anr. Vs Om Prakash Mittal), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 158 (DELHI) : 2008(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 221 (DELHI)
#25: PATNA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing
complaint - Cognizance wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of
Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA)
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheques returned for
revalidation of dates - Accused No.3 changed the dates of cheque and signed the same Previously cheque was signed by two signatories on behalf of the company and later on after
revalidation of dates it was signed by one of the Directors who was also one of the authorized
signatory who had earlier signed the cheques - Held, that revalidation of cheques by change of
dates is not unknown in commercial transactions - Accused Nos.1 & 2 therefore liable to be
prosecuted. (Skyline Aquatech Exports Ltd., Karnataka & Ors. Vs Sachima Agro Industries
Pvt.Ltd., Goa), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (BOMBAY)
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of
offence by Advocate - When authority is granted by a litigant in favour of Advocate which
empowers the latter to enter into a settlement, any settlement arrived at, on behalf of a party
to a lis is binding on the parties. (R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258
#3: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Death of complainant
during pendency of complaint - Son came forward to continue the proceedings - He is
competent to conduct the proceedings initiated by the deceased father - Dismissal of petition on
death of complainant set aside and son allowed to continue the proceedings. (Gene Vs Gabriel),
2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (MADRAS) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 172 (MADRAS)
#4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Material alteration - Blank
cheques issued and later they were filled - Fact that column relating to payee filled up later but
the same does not amount to material alteration. (Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.,
Hyderabad Vs M/s Chaithanyakala Samithi, President & Secretary & Ors.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 071 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (A.P.)
#5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan account number
mentioned as against the payee in the cheque - Amount to be adjusted from current account to
loan account - It is an in-house transaction - Only inference to be drawn is that payee is the
complainant bank only. (Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad Vs M/s
Chaithanyakala Samithi, President & Secretary & Ors.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071
(A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (A.P.)
#6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan account number
mentioned as against the payee in the cheque - Amount to be adjusted from current account to
loan account - It is an in-house transaction - Cheque return memo is conclusive proof to show
that cheques were presented for payment - Acquittal could not be sustained. (Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad Vs M/s Chaithanyakala Samithi, President & Secretary &
Ors.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (A.P.)
#7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Computers taken on rent Blank cheques given - Destruction of computers by accidental fire - Dishonour of cheque - No
averment that it was due to negligence of accused - Accused is not liable u/s 138 of the Act Bailee in absence of any special contract is not responsible for the loss, destruction or
deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken care of it. (Pyramid Finance Ltd. Vs Ramkrishna
Iyer), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (BOMBAY)
#8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred debt - Cheque
issued to pay the time barred debt - It revalidates the debt - By not making the cheque payment
inspite of demand, accused commits an offence. (V.Satyanarayana Raju Vs G.B.Gangadhara
Reddy & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (A.P.)
#9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through
registered post at correct address - Received back with postal endorsement 'Addressee not
present at time of delivery' - It is due service. (V.Satyanarayana Raju Vs G.B.Gangadhara Reddy
& Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (A.P.)
#10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint
dismissed on lack of proper authorisation to file complaint - Finding given that it was a legally
enforceable debt - Appeal against - Accused is entitled to assail finding in absence of any appeal
or revision filed by him - Finding as to legally enforceable debt upheld - Finding on proper
authorisation to file complaint not sustainable - Accused convicted. (Surana Securities Ltd. Vs
G.Kamalakar & Anr.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 616 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
238 (A.P.)
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Conviction - Sentence of
fine and compensation - Both cannot be imposed at a time - Matter remanded for imposing
effective sentence. (Nathuram Sharma Vs Rajendra Goyal), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 261
(P&H)
#12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of
offence - Table appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted as provisions mentioned therein refer
only to provisions of IPC and none other. (R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT
that it was bearer also as the words `or bearer' not cut by accused - Respondent became holder
of cheque in due course - Contention that cheque was not drawn for any specific person and as
such provision of S.138 of the Act not applicable cannot be sustained . (Babu Lal Vs Kewal
Chand), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 432 (M.P.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 608 (M.P.)
#21: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Drawer of
cheque to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice - Period is to be reckoned from date
of first notice - It is a matter of evidence as to when first notice is deemed to have been given
i.e. whether the one given by registered post or the one served personally - It is also a matter of
evidence whether postman went to deliver registered notice or whether he left information that
notice can be collected - Averments of the petitioner cannot be decided without evidence Petition dismissed. (Rajendra Prasad Gupta & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 453 (ALLAHABAD)
#22: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by
Company - Summoning order - Challenged on the ground that it is not averred in the complaint
as to in what manner accused was responsible for the conduct of business of the company Also no specific overt act attributed to petitioner regarding his involvement in the commission of
alleged offence - Prosecution evidence already closed and case fixed for defence evidence Proper course was to allow the proceeding to go on to come to its logical conclusion, one way or
the other - Court declined to interfere in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. (Sona P.Walvekar
Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (CALCUTTA)
#23: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Dishonour
of 3 cheques of Rs.25, 000/- each - Conviction - Accused sentenced to undergo 2 months RI and
a fine of Rs.5, 000/- imposed with default sentence - Order modified - Accused directed to pay
compensation twice the amount of cheque to the complainant. (K.Deenadayalan Vs
A.K.Sumathi), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 487 (MADRAS) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
654 (MADRAS)
#24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cheque
dishonoured and in lieu thereof second cheque issued - Cheque number of second cheque not
mentioned in notice - Held, it cannot be said that notice is not valid. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot
& Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY)
#25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of double
of the amount - Notice if does not specify the amount in terms of the cheque, the same does not
satisfy the legal requirement - Complaint dismissed - Order upheld. (Gurnam Singh Vs Prabh
Dayal Saini), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 286 (P&H)
#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Filed within
two days of refusal to receive notice - Complaint is premature. (M/s. Sarav Investment &
Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident
Fund & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (S.C.)
#2: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Additional
accused - Averments unspecific and general - No particular role assigned to petitioner Summoning order concerning petitioner quashed - However, trial Court will be at liberty to
exercise its power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused at a later stage. (Dev
Sareen Vs DCM Financial Ltd.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 658 (DELHI)
#3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque Consideration - Presumption - Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the
existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused can raise a probable defence
from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption could
be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of
complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of
complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If
accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of
consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration
- The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused
is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay
Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharge of liability Cheque issued for settlement of trade liabilities - Forms valid consideration - Dishonour of
cheque justifies penal action u/s 138 of the Act. (Sree Sakthi Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Anjaneya
Enterprises), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (KERALA)
#15: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Partner - Liability - There must be a specific allegations and averments regarding the role played
by such a partner - Bald allegation that such a partner took active part in the day-to-day
business affairs of the firm without any material in support thereof is not sufficient - Complaint
against petitioner quashed. (P.Snehalatha Vs M/s Victory Leathers), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
50 (MADRAS)
#16: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Account closed Complaint is maintainable. (A.K.Chaudhary & Ors. Vs Nandita Malhotra), 2007(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 593 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (DELHI)
#17: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Receipt of information
from Bank - It can be in any language and through any mode - written, electronic, fax or even
verbal. (A.K.Chaudhary & Ors. Vs Nandita Malhotra), 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 593
(DELHI) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (DELHI)
#18: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to pay
liability of brother - Cheque dishonoured - No legally enforceable debt or other liability Complaint quashed. (Subburam Vs Raja Guru), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 97 (MADRAS)
#19: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Complaint against company and its
Directors - Directors signing the cheque - They cannot escape their liability on the ground that
they resigned after signing the cheque but before the cheques were deposited in the bank.
(M/s.Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s.Rama Vision Limited), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 103 (DELHI)
#20: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Company
Secretary filing complaint on behalf of company - Specific authorisation for filing each case is
not required when there is general authorisation to an officer of the Board of Directors.
(M/s.Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s.Rama Vision Limited), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 103 (DELHI)
#21: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Nothing
in complaint to show that accused Nos.1 & 2 were responsible for conduct of business of the
company at relevant time and nothing to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with or
abetted accused Nos.3 & 4 in respect of alleged offence - Proceedings against accused Nos.1 &
2 quashed. (T.R.Gupta & Anr. Vs M/s Vascon), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (GAUHATI)
#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cheque issued for
part payment of outstanding bills - Cheque dishonoured - By issuing notice demand made of
payment of pending bills and not cheque amount - Held, notice is not valid. (M/s.Rahul Builders
Vs M/s.Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (S.C.)
#23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - An omnibus notice
without specifying as to what was the amount due under the dishonoured cheque does not
subserve the requirement of law. (M/s.Rahul Builders Vs M/s.Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical &
Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (S.C.)
#24: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pendency of civil suit for
recovery of cheque amount - Not a bar for proceeding u/s 138 of the Act - Provision of S.138 of
the Act is an additional criminal remedy over and above the civil remedy available. (Sree Sakthi
Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Anjaneya Enterprises), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (KERALA)
#25: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued - Cheque
again presented and again dishonoured - Notice again issued - Complaint filed on the basis of
second notice - Held, cause of action to file complaint accrues only once - Complaint should
have been filed after issuance of the first notice - Complaint on the basis of second notice is
beyond the period of limitation - Complaint quashed. (Umesh Tandon & Ors. Vs Indian
Technological Products), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (DELHI)
#1: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Advocate - Money lending
- Absence of pleading that accused is not legally liable to pay the amount - On the other hand it
is pleaded that the transaction itself was void being in violation of the Money Lenders Act - Held,
the matter can be taken in defence - Plea does not appear to be sound - The circumstance that
the complainant is an Advocate and that he had lent some amounts to the accused, itself would
not lead to an inference that the agreement was hit by unlawful consideration or that he was
indulging in money lending business. (Meenu Bhist Vs Vijay Kumar Gupta & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 372 (DELHI)
#2: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay Condonation - Delay of thirteen months - Reason stated negotiations were going on - Accused
borrowed a sum of Rs.one lakh - Stake quite heavy - Complainant has given sufficient reasons
for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the matter in the presence of ExPresident of Kammavar Sangam - Delay condoned. (S.Rajaram Vs S.Seenivasan), 2008(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - A duly authorised power of
attorney can file complaint on behalf of the payee or holder-in-due-course - So long as power of
attorney does not seek to conduct prosecution on behalf of payee or holder in due course,
question of seeking permission in that behalf u/s 302 Cr.P.C. or the question as to who should
seek such permission do not arise. (Ashalatha Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
223 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 274 (KERALA)
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney can file
the complaint on behalf of payee or holder-in-due-course. (Ashalatha Vs State of Kerala),
2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 274 (KERALA)
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney can give
evidence in Court on behalf of payee or holder-in-due-course, if facts necessary to secure
conviction are within his personal knowledge. (Ashalatha Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 274 (KERALA)
#6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Signature on cheque
denied from the very beginning - Comparison of signatures - Comparison of signatures by Bank
Manager - Bank Manager though by practice is experienced to compare the signatures but be
cannot be said to be handwriting expert with necessary expertise - Cheque referred to
document expert for comparison of disputed signatures at the cost of accused and in case it is
found that signatures on cheque are not that of accused then charges of expert to be borne by
complainant. (Saheb Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 231 (BOMBAY)
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence u/s 138 of
the Act is compoundable. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1)
APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 :
2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 :
2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 :
2007(8) SUPREME 245
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Direction
to pay double the amount of cheque as compensation - Appellate Court maintained conviction
but amount of compensation reduced - During pendency of revision in High Court parties
compromised and payment made towards full and final settlement of dues - Held, offence u/s
138 of the Act is compoundable and there is no reason to refuse compromise between parties Order of conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted of the charge against him.
(Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052
(S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) :
2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843
(SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2)
SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245
#9: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director's
responsibility - Complainant has to specifically show as to how and in what manner the accused
alleged director was responsible for the conduct of business of the company or otherwise
responsible to it in regard to its function - Allegations bald and general in nature - Proceedings
against petitioner quashed. (Ashok Newatia Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 277
(DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 66 (DELHI)
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Every request to forward
cheque to expert need not be blindly granted. (Baby Thomas Vs Paul), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 346 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 494 (KERALA)
#11: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing
Director and Director - Liability - In case of Managing Director a presumption arises that the
offence is committed with his active knowledge, consent or supervision for the reasons by virtue
of the designation of his office - It is not so in case of Directors - To fasten liability on a Director
it has to be proved that the person named as the Director was responsible to the company and
was in charge of the affairs of the Company pertaining to the conduct of the business of the
company. (Sarla Jain Vs Central Bank of India), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI)
#12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Repayment alleged Receipt produced in defence evidence - In rebuttal complainant filed an affidavit that he never
issued such receipt and it does not bear his signature and it is forged - Complainant once again
cross examined and he once again denied his signature on the receipt - After conviction accused
filed an application for having such receipt examined by handwriting expert - In absence of
taking steps despite having opportunity during trial and object being to fill up lacuna, rejection
of application by Appellate Court, held, proper. (Mamatadevi Vs Vijay Kumar Mamraj Agrawal),
2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 190 (BOMBAY)
#13: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Territorial jurisdiction Cheque drawn in Philibhit - Drawer's bank in Bareilly - Cheque presented in Delhi and
dishonoured - Court at Delhi has jurisdiction to try the complaint. (Meenu Bhist Vs Vijay Kumar
Gupta & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (DELHI)
#14: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred debt - Cheque
issued to pay time barred debt - Has the character of legally enforceable debt.
(A.R.M.Nizmathullah Vs Vaduganathan), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 490 (MADRAS) : 2008(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 558 (MADRAS)
#15: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complainant
can proceed against some of the Directors, 'Deemed liable'. (Meenu Bhist Vs Vijay Kumar Gupta
& Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (DELHI)
#16: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Complaint by Managing Partner of a firm in respect of a cheque issued in favour of firm is
maintianble. (Nasar Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (KERALA)
#17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - An implied
authority is given to the holder of cheque to fill up the columns therein when a blank cheque
duly signed is given - If holder of cheque fills up date and amount by words and figures then it
does not amount to any offence - It is not a case of forgery an fabrication. (Chinthala Cheruvu &
Anr. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (A.P.) : 2008(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 391 (A.P.)
#18: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors
- Sleeping Director - Not a ground to quash proceedings as it is a matter of evidence. (Bhagwati
Prasad Bajaj Vs Brahm Prakash Sharma), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (DELHI) : 2008(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 412 (DELHI)
#19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Stop payment - Sufficient
money to honour the cheque was not in the account - Accused is liable under the Act. (Som
Nath Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 409 (P&H)
#20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through
registered post - Notice received back with postal endorsement 'Unclaimed' - Held, presumption
is of due notice. (Som Nath Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 409 (P&H)
#21: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures on cheque
disputed - Request to send cheque to handwriting expert for comparison of signatures - Request
cannot be declined on ground of delay. (P.R.Ramakrishnan Vs P.Govindarajan), 2008(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 430 (MADRAS)
#22: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Banker's cheque Account attached by Income Tax Department - Issuance of Bankers cheque being the result of
an oversight or negligence - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is not made out - Complaint quashed.
(Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 442 (DELHI)
#23: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Bankers cheque issued
inspite of account attached by Income Tax Department - No offence is made out - Tort of
negligence is not ingredient of an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
(Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 442 (DELHI)
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence Complainant received the amount involved in the cheque - Complaint having no objection for
quashing the proceedings - Proceedings quashed. (J.C.Khandelwal & Ors. Vs M/s. Mittal Cotton
Ginning & Processing Factory), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 482 (P&H)
#25: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Liability - An essential ingredient of an actionable complaint, where liability is fastened on the
shoulders of a Director, would be to aver that the person concerned was in charge of and was
responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (Sarla Jain Vs
Central Bank of India), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI)
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory `Drawn' - Has to be understood as execution - Putting signature on the blank cheque is not
equivalent to the word `drawn' - Word `Drawn' in the provision has to be understood as
`execution' of cheque. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA)
#2: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Stand of
petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company - On consideration of
complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered - Petitioners practically had no role
to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender Proceedings quashed against petitioners. (M/s.Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd. &
Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA)
#3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Plea of accused that blank
cheque as security was given and even after repayment of loan cheque was misused - Accused
admitted in his cross examination that cheque was given to repay the debt - No merit in
contention that blank cheque was given - No ground to interference in concurrent finding of
conviction. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510
(RAJASTHAN)
#4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Cheque
amount 4 lakhs - Accused sentenced to two years imprisonment and to pay compensation of
Rs.5 lakhs - Sentence reduced to one year imprisonment but order of compensation upheld.
(Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN)
#5: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Stop payment Cheque dishonoured - Cheque presented again - Collecting bank returned cheque noticing
defacement and it was never presented to drawer's bank - Cheque shall be deemed to be
presented only once - Notice not served within statutory period when cheque was first
dishonoured - Held, complaint not maintainable. (Shroff Publisher & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Vs M/s.Springer India Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (DELHI)
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - It is not
necessary to insist on personal appearance of complainant invariably in all cases when
complaint is presented. (H.D.F.C. Vs Anilesh), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (KERALA) :
adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute - However, when execution of cheque
itself is disputed and not proved, Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe
conclusion. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA)
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory `Drawn' - Has to be understood as execution - Putting signature on the blank cheque is not
equivalent to the word `drawn' - Word `Drawn' in the provision has to be understood as
`execution' of cheque. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA)
#2: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Stand of
petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company - On consideration of
complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered - Petitioners practically had no role
to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender Proceedings quashed against petitioners. (M/s.Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd. &
Ors. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA)
#3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Plea of accused that blank
cheque as security was given and even after repayment of loan cheque was misused - Accused
admitted in his cross examination that cheque was given to repay the debt - No merit in
contention that blank cheque was given - No ground to interference in concurrent finding of
conviction. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510
(RAJASTHAN)
#4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Cheque
amount 4 lakhs - Accused sentenced to two years imprisonment and to pay compensation of
Rs.5 lakhs - Sentence reduced to one year imprisonment but order of compensation upheld.
(Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN)
#5: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Stop payment Cheque dishonoured - Cheque presented again - Collecting bank returned cheque noticing
defacement and it was never presented to drawer's bank - Cheque shall be deemed to be
presented only once - Notice not served within statutory period when cheque was first
dishonoured - Held, complaint not maintainable. (Shroff Publisher & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Vs M/s.Springer India Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (DELHI)
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - It is not
necessary to insist on personal appearance of complainant invariably in all cases when
complaint is presented. (H.D.F.C. Vs Anilesh), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (KERALA) :
2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 245 (KERALA)
#7: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from personal
appearance - Dismissal of application - Reasons not assigned - Court while passing an order is
required to assign reasons for the conclusions arrived at - Impugned order set aside - Court to
decide application afresh. (Sri Brajabandhu Mohapatra Vs Sri Sasanka Sekhar Senapati), 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (ORISSA)
#8: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Returned with
endorsement `there was no such addressee' - Address mentioned on postal cover not disputed Summons served at the same address - Accused did not chose to enter into the witness box When questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused did not say that notice was not served as per law or
notice was returned with false endorsement with the connivance of the complainant - Held,
there is valid service of notice and accused evaded to receive notice. (Michel Anthony Vs
P.S.Chandrasekara), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (MADRAS)
#9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise during
pendency of appeal - Written compromise also filed - Conviction set aside - Accused acquitted.
(Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602
(RAJASTHAN)
#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - To
file complaint limitation starts to run from the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of
notice and not from the date of service of notice - Order counting one month from date of
service of notice and thereby holding that complaint was barred by limitation, held, not proper.
(Sadguru Sales Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 633 (BOMBAY)
(Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN)
#5: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Stop payment Cheque dishonoured - Cheque presented again - Collecting bank returned cheque noticing
defacement and it was never presented to drawer's bank - Cheque shall be deemed to be
presented only once - Notice not served within statutory period when cheque was first
dishonoured - Held, complaint not maintainable. (Shroff Publisher & Distributors Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Vs M/s.Springer India Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (DELHI)
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - It is not
necessary to insist on personal appearance of complainant invariably in all cases when
complaint is presented. (H.D.F.C. Vs Anilesh), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (KERALA) :
2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 245 (KERALA)
#7: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from personal
appearance - Dismissal of application - Reasons not assigned - Court while passing an order is
required to assign reasons for the conclusions arrived at - Impugned order set aside - Court to
decide application afresh. (Sri Brajabandhu Mohapatra Vs Sri Sasanka Sekhar Senapati), 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (ORISSA)
#8: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Returned with
endorsement `there was no such addressee' - Address mentioned on postal cover not disputed Summons served at the same address - Accused did not chose to enter into the witness box When questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. accused did not say that notice was not served as per law or
notice was returned with false endorsement with the connivance of the complainant - Held,
there is valid service of notice and accused evaded to receive notice. (Michel Anthony Vs
P.S.Chandrasekara), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (MADRAS)
#9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise during
pendency of appeal - Written compromise also filed - Conviction set aside - Accused acquitted.
(Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602
(RAJASTHAN)
#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - To
file complaint limitation starts to run from the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of
notice and not from the date of service of notice - Order counting one month from date of
service of notice and thereby holding that complaint was barred by limitation, held, not proper.
(Sadguru Sales Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 633 (BOMBAY)
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Execution
and issue of cheque has to be proved to draw the presumption - When execution itself is not
proved, presumption u/s 139 of the Act is not available - Admission of signatures on cheque
goes a long way to prove due execution - Possession of cheque by the complainant similarly
goes a long way to prove issue of cheque - In the instant case signatures on cheque admitted However, complaint not proving as to when cheque was given, who has written the amount and
date on cheque and in whose hand writing the cheque was written - Held, it cannot be said that
complainant has discharged the burden of proving its execution. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese),
2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA)
#12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Sought on ground that complaint not filed within time on the basis of first notice - Issue as to
whether the first notice was served or sought to be served by the postman on the accused has
to be decided on the basis of evidence and postman concerned has to step in the witness box Process issued cannot be recalled. (Ratilal Manjibhai Patel Vs Crown Industries & Anr.), 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 500 (BOMBAY)
#13: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Mere proof of signature on
cheque is not proof of its execution - In the absence of any positive evidence regarding the
execution of the cheque by accused, it is to be held that the accused had issued only blank
cheque and the same was not executed by him - Simply because the cheque contained the
signature of the accused, it cannot be said that the cheque was drawn by the accused as
contemplated by S.138 of the Act. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642
(KERALA)
that he did not get the consideration - Presumption in favour of complainant continues and
failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is
rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY)
#24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan of Rs.4 lacs - No
document produced in support of loan amount - Held, this in itself is insufficient to displace the
presumption available to the complainant. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan
Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977
(BOMBAY)
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Court is not bound to
adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute - However, when execution of cheque
itself is disputed and not proved, Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe
conclusion. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA)
#1: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Change in date - It is for
the complainant to prove that change in the date was made with the consent of accused.
(Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280
(ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571
#2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Quashing of - Plea that goods were rejected and complainant was not entitled to get the cheque
encashed - Summoning order cannot be quashed on this ground - Plea is available at the time of
defence. (M/s V.V.Enterprises & Anr. Vs M/s Bansal Industries), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
917 (P&H) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (P&H)
#3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Summary trial
- Provision of S.256 Cr.P.C. applies - Non appearance of complainant on date fixed for
appearance of accused - Magistrate has no option but to acquit accused unless he chooses to
adjourn the proceeding to some other date. (Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 062 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 120 (ALLAHABAD)
#4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Non
appearance of complainant on date fixed for appearance of accused - Accused acquitted Complainant had right to file special leave to appeal to High Court u/s 378(4) - No appeal filed Revision is not maintainable before Sessions Judge. (Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Anr.),
2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 062 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 120
(ALLAHABAD)
#5: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Stop payment - In no way
absolve statutory liability cast upon accused - Accused liable to be punished u/s 138 of the Act.
(Balasubbaraj Vs R.Narayanan), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS)
#6: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of loan
amount and not demand for payment of cheque amount and further demand of damages on
account of mental torture - Demand not in accordance with requirement of the provision of
S.138 of the Act - Complaint founded on this demand notice is not maintainable. (Kapil
Aggarwal Vs Raghu Vias), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (DELHI)
#7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - During
pendency of complaint Court allowed the son of complainant, his general power of attorney
holder, to continue the proceedings - No ground to quash the proceedings. (Bodapati Naga
Krishna Gandhi Vs Sri Ilapakurthi Sri Ramulu & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 147 (A.P.) :
2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 271 (A.P.)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Sentence of
simple imprisonment and fine - Appeal against - Appeal/Revision cannot be dismissed for non
deposit of amount of fine. (Vijay D.Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 164 (S.C.)
permission of the Court for sending any other person to represent the company in the Court.
(M/s Voltas Ltd. Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A.P.)
#4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pre mature complaint - Complaint not to be
dismissed - Complaint can be kept pending for taking cognizance when cause of action arises to
the complainant or it may be returned to complainant for filing it later. (L.K.Prabhavathi Vs
K.V.Sree Rama Murthy & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (A.P.)
#5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued
against loan - Loan denied - No proof of lending money - Even month or year of loan not
disclosed - Held, when complainant does not place on record any material of lending money
then it is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut the presumption available in favour of
the complainant - Accused not guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (G.Veeresham Vs S.Shiva
Shankar & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (A.P.)
#6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint beyond
period of limitation - Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause - Amendment in provision of
S.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases. (Kumudben
Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT)
#7: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security
for repayment of loan - Cheque continues to be one issued for the discharge of liability as
contemplated u/s 138 of the Act. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 546 (KERALA)
#8: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharging of
liability - Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back - No explanation as to why
acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged - Plea of discharge is so
fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable.
(K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA)
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Cheque
amount Rs.20, 000/- - Accused sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of Court - Accused
to pay Rs.27, 000/- as compensation and in default to undergo S.I. for a period of one month - If
realised the entire amount be released to the complainant. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma
& Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA)
#10: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Post dated cheque Initiation of proceedings u/s 138 of the Act - Initiation of separate proceedings u/s 420 IPC for
the offence of cheating is maintainable as it does not amount to double jeopardy. (V.Kannan Vs
State by District Crime Branch, Namakkal), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 549 (MADRAS)
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed Regarding same very cheques FIR lodged u/ss 420, 406 IPC - FIR quashed. (Indian Penal Code,
1860, Ss.420, 406). (Harinderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 637
(P&H)
#12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by
power of attorney holder - Even if initially there was no authority, still the Company can, at any
stage, rectify that defect - At a subsequent stage, the company can send a person who is
competent to represent the company. (M/s Voltas Ltd. Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt. Ltd.),
2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A.P.)
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Evidence is not required to be pleaded but there has to be a basic averment as to how one is
involved in the alleged crime. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4)
CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY)
#14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent by registered
post at correct address - Notice if received back with postal endorsement that premises is found
locked or the addressee is not available then notice is deemed to be served on the addressee
unless addressee proves that he had no knowledge that notice was brought to his address.
(C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) :
2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7)
SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 :
2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185
#15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Mere fact
that proceedings have been quashed against the accused will not prevent the Court from
exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against him has
been made out in the additional evidence led before it. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises
and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
967 (BOMBAY)
#16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant is at liberty
to file a suit for recovery of the amount as well as a complaint for bouncing of the cheques.
(Smt.Mymoona Vs H.M.Trading Company, Mangalore & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 688
(KARNATAKA)
#17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan - No instrument
executed though a huge loan was advanced - Even no interest thereon charged - Earlier
accused did not pay instalments in respect of the prized amount of chitties - Loan advanced
inspite of the fact that three civil suits for recovery of money against accused were pending Complainant not approaching Court with clean hands and his conduct not that of a prudent man
- Held, accused has discharged his burden to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act
- Order of acquittal, upheld. (John K.John Vs Tom Varghese & Anr.), 2007(3) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 655 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 974 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 278 : 2008 CRILJ 434 : 2007 AIRSCW 6736 : 2008 CLC 214 :
2008(1) AIRKARR 129 : 2007(12) SCC 714 : 2007(12) SCALE 333 : 2007(7) SUPREME 484
#18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissed in
default for single instance of non appearance of complainant - Complaint ordered to be restored
to be decided on merits. (Print Links (India) & Anr. Vs M/s.Kiran Paper Convertors & Merchants &
Ors.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (P&H)
#19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Advancing loan of a huge
amount of Rs.3.16 lakhs - Complainant himself used to borrow money from his brothers, father
and others - Complainant failed to show that he had any financial capacity to advance such a
huge amount - Accused acquitted. (K.Prakashan Vs P.K.Surenderan), 2007(3) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 429 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 371 (S.C.)
#20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Complaint by one of its Directors - Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board
of Directors - Held, on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction
imposed. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY)
#21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Giving notice' is not the same as
`receipt of notice' - Giving is a process of which receipt is the accomplishment - It is for the
payee to perform the former process by sending the notice to the drawer at the correct address
- Once notice is dispatched his part is over and the next depends on what the sendee does.
(C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) :
2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7)
SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 :
2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185
#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Claim as to non receipt of - Drawer can
still make the payment of cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons and can
absolve himself of prosecution u/s 138 of the Act - If drawer does not make payment of cheque
amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons then plea of proper service of notice is not
available to him. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC
555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185
#23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent by registered post at correct
address - Notice received back with postal endorsement that addressee was abroad - Held,
provision of S.138 is sufficiently complied with. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.),
2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC
57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185
#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Absence of pleading that notice was sent
at the correct address of the drawer by registered post acknowledgement due - However,
returned envelope annexed to complaint and thus it formed part of the complaint - Returned
enveloped showed that it was sent by registered post acknowledgement due to the correct
address with endorsement that `the addressee was abroad' - Held, requirement of S.138 of the
Act is sufficiently complied with. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX
COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 :
2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185
#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Extension of date of
cheque - When a drawer revalidates cheque from time to time, which is permissible, then on
each occasion there is a fresh promise as envisaged by S.25 of Contract Act as well as an
acknowledgment within the meaning of S.18 of Limitation Act if such revalidation is made within
the period of limitation - Held, liability is legally enforceable liability. (Vijay Ganesh Gondhlekar
Vs Indranil Jairaj Damale), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (BOMBAY)
#1: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - There was no debt or
liability at the time when cheque was given - Complaint not maintainable - Summoning order
quashed. (Exports India & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 198 (DELHI) :
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 252 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 269 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 599 :
2007(137) DLT 193
#2: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company Notice to company - Director or person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of
company cannot be prosecuted when notice is not issued to him - Statutory notice to every
person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs
Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB)
#3: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Agent Petitioner neither a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company - Petitioner not
incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Petitioner may have
handled transactions for and on behalf of the company in India - This does not bring petitioner
within the purview of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order qua petitioner quashed. (Birthe Foster
Vs State & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 075 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
026 (DELHI)
#4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Tendered his resignation prior to issuance of cheque - Not liable for the offence committed by
company - Order of issuance of process against Director quashed and set aside. (Amit Mohan
Inder Mohan Sharma Vs M/s.Mamta Agency & Ors.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 805
(BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 089 (BOMBAY)
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine and compensation Distinction between sub-sections (1) and (3) of S.357 Cr.P.C. - Magistrate cannot award
compensation in addition to fine - Compensation cannot be recovered forthwith unless period of
appeal expires - There is no reason as to why the amount of compensation should be held to be
automatically payable, although the same is only to be recovered as if a fine has been imposed.
(Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co.Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 387
(S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRL.) 636 : 2007(2) RAJ 424 :
2007(6) SCC 528
#6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Conviction of
company and A2 - Company sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25, 000/- - A2 was sentenced to suffer
imprisonment for one month - A2 also directed to pay compensation of Rs.15 lacs to the
complainant - Appeal against - Appellate Court while admitting appeal directed them to deposit
a sum of Rs.5 lacs each - Held, impugned order is not sustainable - Amount of compensation
must be a reasonable amount - A2 directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1 lac - Since fine alone has
been imposed on company which can be suspended during appeal. (Dilip S.Dahanukar Vs Kotak
Mahindra Co.Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 387 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 113 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRL.) 636 : 2007(2) RAJ 424 : 2007(6) SCC 528
#7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of
attorney holder - If transactions are witnessed by power of attorney or he has full knowledge of
the transactions, his statement can be recorded by Magistrate for verification of the complaint.
(Shanaz D'Souza Vs Sheikh Ameer Saheeb & Anr.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1029
(BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY)
#8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque not issued for a
debt or liability - Burden of proof is on the accused. (Shanaz D'Souza Vs Sheikh Ameer Saheeb &
Anr.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1029 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131
(BOMBAY)
#9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards
time barred debt - Accused cannot be convicted u/s 138 of the Act. (Zaheeda Kazi Vs
Mrs.Sharina Ashraff Khan), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (BOMBAY)
#10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Detailed reasons need not to be given. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries),
2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H)
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Exemption from personal
appearance - Cheque amount Rs.2 lakhs - Exemption granted from personal appearance on
deposit of an amount of Rs.2 lakhs. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries),
2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H)
#12: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company Statutory notice to every person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted, is
mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB)
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - Has to
be on the basis of allegations in complaint and preliminary evidence - Defence set up in reply to
notice not to be looked into at that stage. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries),
2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H)
#14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - It is for
drawer to rebut presumption - In absence of rebuttal evidence, it is to be presumed that cheque
was issued for discharge of debt or other liability. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA)
#15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay Cannot be condoned without notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs
M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA)
#16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - Liability - Pleading There should be an assertion in the complaint that the named accused are directors of the
company and that they are incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the
business of the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX
COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5)
SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 :
2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860
#17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - A person is entitled
to presume that directors of the company are incharge of the affairs of the company - If any
restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for
the directors to establish it at the trial. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited),
2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511
: 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J.
2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860
#18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - When the offender is a
company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of and
was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall also be
deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206
(S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 :
2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 :
2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Even
if the signature in the cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed
by the accused. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237
(KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007
CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Blank cheque - It cannot be presumed that
an implied authority is given to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt
etc. - There must be allegation in complaint and evidence that blank cheque was issued with
implied authority to holder to fill up the same. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007
NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR
875
#21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Cheque
issued for cost of goods to be supplied by drawee - Bank account closed after issuance of
cheque - Cheque presented to bank for realisation and same dishonoured - No criminal liability
for the reasons that (i) cheque when issued was blank; (ii) Cheque when presented for payment,
was time barred as it was presented for payment after expiry of six months reckoned from date
on which it was issued in blank; (iii) cheque when issued was not towards any existing debt or
liability - Order of trial Court acquitting accused calls for no interference. (Vishnudas Vs Vijaya
Mahantesh), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 951 (KAR.) : 2007(2)
AIRKARR 326 : 2007(55) ALLINDCAS 719 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 1708 : 2007(3) KANTLJ 122 :
2007(4) RECCIVR 213
#22: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Despatch of notice
within 30 days is the requirement of law - Date of receipt of notice is not crucial or relevant.
(Ravi Vs Kuttappan), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 337 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 071 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1955 (KERALA) : 2007(3) KERLT 31 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 28
#23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through
registered post at correct address - Notice received back `unclaimed' - Held, notice is presumed
to have been served. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) :
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA)
#24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Forms part of
the record and it need not be marked and non marking is not fatal to the complainant's case.
(Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA)
#25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of proceedings In proceedings u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. High Court is not to go into the truthfulness of the allegations Once a complaint discloses the commission of an offence, the veracity of the allegations is not
to be tested in proceedings u/s 482 of the Code as the same had to be tested in the backdrop of
the evidence which is yet to come on record. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar
Industries), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H)
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Two cheque of
the value of Rs.55, 500/- - Fine imposed Rs.2500/- in each case without any direction to pay
amount due on cheques bounced - Complainant should at least be compensated with the
amount due by the accused on the cheque issued by him - That should be the rule unless there
are good reasons to depart from the same - Sentence imposed set aside and case remanded
with a direction to pass appropriate sentence in accordance with law. (Shri Basavraj
D.Allayyanvar Vs Shri Santosh Kapadi), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 437 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2007 NOC 1358 (BOMBAY) : 2007 CRILJ 2220 :
2007(3) AIRBOMR 314 : 2007 ALLMR(CR() 1063 : 2007(1) BOMCR (CRI) 1028
#2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes - Cheque
is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or
liability - Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted
with. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Bhave & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY)
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Director who negotiated for obtaining financial assistance on behalf of the
Company cannot be held vicariously liable - It does not give rise to an inference that he was
responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company - Vicarious liability on the part of a person
must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (K.Srikanth
Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) :
2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9)
SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ
226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595
#4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - It must be pleaded that accused was responsible to the Company for the
conduct of the business of the Company. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. &
Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) :
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT
2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC
595
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere
inference. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR
CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595
#6: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Undelivered letter
or A.D. not received back - Allowance of period of service of notice which at least should be a
week is admissible in this regard - Period to file complaint is thus extended to a further period of
a week. (ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Prafull Chandra), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (DELHI) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 731 (DELHI)
#7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Son of deceased partner Cannot be impleaded as an accused merely for the reason that he happens to be the son of
deceased partner. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR
2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3)
RECCIVR 595
#8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Holder in due course - Cheque payable to bearer
- Respondent is deemed to be holder in due course of cheque - Has locus to file complaint on
dishonour of cheque. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR
2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3)
RECCIVR 595
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a
complaint u/s 138 of the Act, Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt
or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The burden of proving that the cheque had not been
issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala &
Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - It must be pleaded that accused was responsible to the Company for the
conduct of the business of the Company. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. &
Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) :
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT
2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC
595
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere
inference. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR
CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595
#6: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Undelivered letter
or A.D. not received back - Allowance of period of service of notice which at least should be a
week is admissible in this regard - Period to file complaint is thus extended to a further period of
a week. (ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Prafull Chandra), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (DELHI) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 731 (DELHI)
#7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Son of deceased partner Cannot be impleaded as an accused merely for the reason that he happens to be the son of
deceased partner. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR
2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3)
RECCIVR 595
#8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Holder in due course - Cheque payable to bearer
- Respondent is deemed to be holder in due course of cheque - Has locus to file complaint on
dishonour of cheque. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR
2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3)
RECCIVR 595
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a
complaint u/s 138 of the Act, Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt
or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The burden of proving that the cheque had not been
issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala &
Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA)
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Unless
amount is claimable in civil suit, direction u/s 357(1) or S.357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of
compensation cannot be issued. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC
2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 30-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - When
dishonour of cheque takes place, certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated. (Sathyan
Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5)
AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923
#12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - High Court of one State cannot
quash criminal proceedings pending in a Court within jurisdiction of another High Court. (Tripti
Vyas Vs M/s Ahlers India Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 469 (RAJASTHAN)
#13: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Interest Direction can be issued u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of interest. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs
Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889
(KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR
857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923
#14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine/or compensation Power of court to impose fine may or may not be limited but power to award compensation is
not - Consideration for payment of compensation is somewhat different from payment of fine.
(P.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Shankar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.C.)
#15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards
repayment of loan - Money lender - Not possible to lend money without any document - Date of
lending money not mentioned in complaint and notice - Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning
loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced - Presumption u/s 139 is not
available - Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan
given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present
proceedings instituted by him to realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable Accused acquitted. (M.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687
(KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR.) :
2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286
#16: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - - Cheque drawn for
discharge of time-barred liability - Dishonour of cheque will fall within the sweep of S.138 of the
Act. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) :
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 :
2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque of Rs.3 lacs - Accused
convicted and sentenced till rising of Court - Accused liable to pay compensation of Rs.3.50 lacs
and in default to undergo two months S.I. - Compensation amount if realised payable to
complainant. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713
(KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.) : 2007
CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161
#18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused borrowed money and issued two
cheques - Two options were available to complainant to either get the cheques encashed or in
the alternative to get plot of 100 square yards - Subsequent to the bouncing of cheques
complainant did not avail of second option - Held, as there was contingent alternative available
to complainant to get worth of his money in terms of real estate which was not availed, no
offence u/s 420 IPC is made out. (Geeta Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65
#19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque not presented in
Bank for encashment within six months from the date on which it was drawn - No offence u/s
138 of the Act is made out. (Geeta Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810
(ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65
#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption
u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.)
#21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption Rebuttal - Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the
reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon - Burden of proof on
accused is not as high as that of the prosecution. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.)
#22: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred complaint Condonation of delay - First notice of application be issued to the other side without taking
cognizance of complaint - Application be decided after hearing the parties. (Prashant Goel Vs
State & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 028 (DELHI)
#23: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Cheque issued in 2003 whereas petitioner ceased to be Director of Company in 1994 - Certified
copy of Form-32 issued by Registrar of Companies is a conclusive proof that petitioner resigned
in 1994 - Petitioner was not Director at the material time - Proceedings against petitioner,
quashed . (Dr.(Mrs.) Sarla Kumar Vs Srei International Finance Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
065 (DELHI)
#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine and/or compensation
- Imposition of fine and/or compensation must be considered having regard to the relevant
factors in mind as envisaged u/s 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (P.Suresh Kumar Vs
R.Shankar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.C.)
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Interest Court can ascertain the loss which the complainant would suffer/has suffered on account of the
delay in payment and appropriate rate of interest can be directed to be paid, consistent with the
rate of interest payable by the nationalised banks - In the instant case interest at the rate of 8%
per annum allowed. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) :
2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923
#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Only such person is liable if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was
responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (N.K.Wahi Vs
Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.)
#2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent as per
registered post and also as per UPC - Notice sent as per registered post returned by postman by
endorsing false report - Notice sent under UPC received by addressee - Service of notice denied
by filing affidavit - Same not controverted by filing counter affidavit - It is liable to be deemed
that there was no sufficient service of notice - Proceedings quashed. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises
& Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD)
#3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Accused took plea that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security - It is not
a ground for quashing complaint - Such matter has to be looked into at stage of trial. (M/s Jai
Durga Enterprises & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD)
#4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is
necessary to specifically aver in complaint that at the time offence was committed, the person
accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company - Without such an
averment in complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied - No such
averment in complaint - Complaint qua petitioner quashed. (Hazi Abadullah & Ors. Vs State of
Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 393 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 110 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 59 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 755
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 43-- - Dishonour of cheque - Lending of money Cheque issued before amount given by complainant - Cheque is one issued in discharge of the
debt or liability coming u/s 138 of the Act - However, in case cheque is issued in anticipation of
lending money but money is not given to the borrower then consideration fails and S.43 of the
Act comes into play. (George Vs Kamarudeen), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KERALA)
#6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for
an offence committed by the Company that he was in charge and responsible to the Company
for the conduct of its business - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively.
(S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.)
: 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3)
SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC)
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Ingredients of offence u/s
138 of the Act are : (i) a cheque was issued; (ii) the same was presented; (iii) but, it was
dishonoured; (iv) a notice in terms of the said provision was served on the person sought to be
made liable; and (v) despite service of notice, neither any payment was made nor other
obligations, if any, were complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice.
(S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.)
: 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3)
SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed.
(S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.)
: 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3)
SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC)
#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonor of cheque - Company - Director
resigned prior to issuance of cheque - No counter credential projected by complainant Petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. (Lachhman
P.Udhani & Ors. Vs M/s.Redington (India) Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 135 (MADRAS)
#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Not received by
accused - Cheque presented again - Bank not accepting the cheque - Bank had no occasion
either to honour or dishonour the cheque - No cause of action - Complaint dismissed.
(Manibhadra Marketing Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs Chandrakant Manilal Kothari & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 142 (BOMBAY)
#11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 47 - Dishonour of
cheque - Expert opinion - Signature on cheque disputed - Court undertook exercise of naked
comparison of signatures of accused on cheque with other admitted signatures and came to
conclusion that signature on cheque does not appear to be signature of accused - Court should
be assisted by experts opinion - Banker is more competent to say whether it is signature of
accused or not with reference to specimen signatures - Issuance of cheque proved Presumption arises u/s 139 of Act in favour of complainant - Acquittal not valid. (Rajendra
Prasad Vs M.Shivaraj), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KARNATAKA)
#12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issued as security - Even if
cheque is issued as a security for payment, it is negotiable instrument and encashable security
at the hands of payee - Not a ground to exonerate the penal liability u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
(Umaswamy Vs K.N.Ramanath), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 096 (KARNATAKA)
#13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Provision of Section 446 of
Companies Act has no application to the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 138 of NI Act has overriding effect over section 446 of Companies Act - Order staying
proceedings under section 138 because of Section 446 of Companies Act, quashed. (Gyan
Chand Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 176 (RAJASTHAN)
#14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of
attorney holder - Failure to produce power of attorney authorising to lodge complaint and to
give sworn statement on behalf of his principal - Dismissal of complaint for want of proof of
power of attorney justified. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore &
Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475
(KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR
BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491
#15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director There should be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by a Director in the
transaction - There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are
incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Description should be
clear - In absence of any averment or specific evidence the complaint is not entertainable.
(N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.)
#16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Allegations in complaint that respondent accused Nos.2 to 12 were Directors/persons
responsible for carrying out business of company and the liability of accused persons was joint
and several - High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show that
respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed
proceedings against respondents - No reason to interfere. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.)
#17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Part time
Director - No averment in complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day
business of the company or was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of
its business at the time of commission of offence - Petitioner not a signatory of the cheque -
Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 181 (P&H)
#18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed by
husband on behalf of wife on the basis of authority letter - Husband neither a general nor
special power of attorney holder - In the authority letter it was no where undertaken that the
executant would be bound by the acts done and conducted on her behalf in respect of the
cheque - Held, complainant not competent to institute the complaint - Complaint quashed.
(O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H)
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (a) - `Within a period of six months' Date of cheque is not to be excluded in calculating the period of six months. (Nanu Vs Vijayan),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 193 (KERALA)
#20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt Rebuttal of presumption - Ink of signature different from the ink of other writings of cheque Entire cheque amount found not due in view of admission of receipt of certain amount - No
legally enforceable debt - Acquittal, held, proper. (V.Rama Shetty Vs N.Sasidaran Nayar),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 231 (KARNATAKA)
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Appeal Admitted and notice ordered to be issued to the complainant - Non appearance of accused Appeal cannot be dismissed for default - Appellate Court has to peruse the record and pass an
order on merits. (V.R.Jayasankar Vs K.G.Dharman & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 252
(KERALA)
#22: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Winding up
orders of company passed and official liquidator appointed - Complaint against Directors of
Company in respect of cheques presented and dishonoured after winding up orders are passed
is not maintainable. (Ratan Lal Garera & Ors. Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 318 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI)
#23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures denied Handwriting expert - When cheque is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds then there is no
need for handwriting expert to give his opinion on signature on cheque - In case of denial of
signature of drawer of a cheque, the best witness would be the concerned Bank Manager and
not a handwriting expert - Impugned order allowing application not sustainable in law.
(H.M.Satish Vs B.N.Ashok), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 549 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1383 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 2312 : 2007(3)
AIRKARR 58 : 2007(4) AIRBOMR 664 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 936 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 479
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissal in
default - Complaint can be dismissed in default when personal attendance of complaint was
essential on the crucial date - Order dismissing complaint in default set aside as complaint was
dismissed without considering the said question. (Dilawar Singh Vs Pankaj Joshi & Anr.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 355 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 604 (P&H)
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court at the
place of office of Advocate who issued statutory notice has no territorial jurisdiction - Complaint
ordered to be returned for its presentation before the proper Court. (Harihara Puthra Sharma Vs
State of Kerala & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA)
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 143-- (As amended) - Dishonour of cheque - Fine
exceeding Rs.5, 000/- can be imposed in view of amended provision of S.143 of the Act.
(Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523
(BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418
(BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR
893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370
#2: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Process issued - Quashing
of proceedings - Cheque not presented within its validity period i.e. six months - Liability u/s 138
of Act not incurred - Proceedings quashed. (Shrikant Chavan Vs Hotel the Vaishno Devi), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (J&K)
of complaint made after prescribed period, if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient
cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs
Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 :
2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007
KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491
#13: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Misutilisation of blank
signed cheque - Sending cheque to handwriting expert - Admission of signature in cheque is not
equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution - Magistrate directed to forward the
cheque to expert for comparison if accused wants the admitted handwritings/specimen writings
to be compared with the disputed writings in the cheque. (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007
NOC 195 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ
245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114
#14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship
concern - An employee of a proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the
Act. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001
(S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) :
2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 :
AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR
403 : 2007(5) SCC 103
#15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Seven cheques issued on
different dates - Separate notices issued - Seven complaints filed - Trial for each offence held
separately and accused convicted - Held, it is not obligatory for the trial Court to direct in all
cases that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence - Refusal of
Magistrate to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence
cannot lead to causing miscarriage of justice. (Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra &
Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748
(BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52)
ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370
#16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Seven cheques issued on
different dates - Separate notices issued - Seven complaints are maintainable - However, in case
single notice is issued then all the transactions covered by the notice would be regarded as a
single transaction, permitting a single trial. (Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra &
Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748
(BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52)
ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370
#17: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder Complaint signed by power of attorney holder in his own name and not on behalf of complainant
- Complaint is maintainable and not bad in law. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.by the
Power of Attorney Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB)
#18: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder It is not required to record the sworn affidavit of complainant also on a future date to enable the
Court to exercise its discretion u/ss 202 & 203 of Cr.P.C. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann
rep.by the Power of Attorney Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB)
#19: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint through power
of attorney holder - Power of attorney - If not filed at initial stage can be filed even at a later
stage when validity of the same is questioned and Court then has to decide the genuineness or
the validity of the same. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.by the Power of Attorney
Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683
(MADRAS) (DB)
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Territorial
jurisdiction - Complaint filed in the Court of CJM whereas it had to be filed in the Court of
Magistrate in the same district - CJM erroneously took cognizance - Complaint returned to be
presented in a Court having territorial jurisdiction - Complaint beyond limitation when filed in
Court of Magistrate - Every Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint throughout the
district, but because of division of work that Court may not try a complaint and, therefore, it
may order presentation of complaint at a place so earmarked - Held, once the Court of CJM had
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the period provided for limitation would stop running
from the day it was presented in the said Court - Complaint, held within limitation. (V.K.Soman
Pillai Vs Sabu Jacob & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 945 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2032 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1042 : 2007(3) ALJ 390 :
2007(5) AKAR 813 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 445 : 2007(49) ALLINDCAS 208 : 2007(1) KERLJ 178 :
2006(4) KERLJ 604 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 591
#21: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Manager filed
complaint - Manager not duly authorized by Board of Directors to sign and file the complaint Not a ground for quashing the complaint. (Bhasin Credit Aid Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 607 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (DELHI)
#22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court at the
place where money was intended to be paid has jurisdiction - Court at place where cheque was
presented for realisation has no jurisdiction to try the offence. (Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs
State of Maharashtra), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (BOMBAY) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 771 (BOMBAY)
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Non supply of goods for which cheque was issued - Not a ground to quash complaint - It is a
matter of fact which has to be proved before a Court of law. (M/s.Shirdi Overseas Imports &
Exports & Anr. Vs M/s.Serve Overseas & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 638 (P&H) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1057 (P&H)
#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Vicarious
liability - Complaint must contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview
of S.141 of the Act so as to make some persons other than company vicariously liable therefor.
(Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) :
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2)
RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007
SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 :
2007(5) SCC 103
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signature in cheque Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution By mere admission of signature right of accused to contend that a blank signed cheque was
misutilised by the payee is not taken away. (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195
(KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 :
2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Money lending business Question as to complainant having no money lending licence is not relevant in a complaint filed
u/s 138 NI Act which is more in quasi civil and criminal in nature. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs
S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
592 (KARNATAKA)
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Notice issued
but received back with endorsement `no such addressee' - Cheque presented against and
dishonoured again - Notice issued again - Cause of action arises only on receipt of second notice
- Limitation starts to run from receipt of second notice. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs T.K.Ramankutty &
Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action arose
within State of Kerala but complaint filed in a Court outside the State of Kerala - Kerala High
Court is not competent to quash the complaint or interfere with the proceedings before a
criminal court, outside the jurisdiction of the Court. (Meenakshi Sathish (Mrs.) Vs Southern
Petrochemical Industries & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (KERALA) (FB) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 798 (KERALA) (FB)
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of witness - Bank
witness produced but through oversight the dishonoured cheque and memo issued by Bank not
exhibited - It is a case of oversight and not an attempt to fill in the lacuna - Production of
cheque and memo is necessary for the just decision of a complaint - Application allowed.
(Janeshwar Dutt Vs Sanjiv Kumar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 693 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 833 (P&H)
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Chairman or
Director - Pleading - There must be an averment that the person who is vicariously liable for
commission of the offence of the Company both was incharge of and was responsible for the
conduct of the business of the Company - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not
disjunctively. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 708 (S.C.)
#6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - Recall
of order - Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the summoning order - A Magistrate does not
have and, thus, cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.)
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors Pleading - As a result of fall out of non payment negotiations were held between parties wherein
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 took part - Held, there is no doubt that ingredients of S.141 of the Act
stand satisfied. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.)
#8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint on
ground that complainant is not a holder in due course - Question can be decided only when
parties lead evidence - No ground to quash complaint. (Anil Kumar Jaiswal Vs State & Anr.),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 982
(ALLAHABAD)
#9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint - Not
proper to dismiss complaint - Complaint should be kept pending till the ripening of cause of
action or complaint to be returned with an advice to the complainant for presentation after
completion of necessary statutory period. (V.S.Shivadas Vs Ramanath Shetty & Anr.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 747 (KARNATAKA)
#10: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt
or liability - Cheque issued in discharge of liability arising out of an agreement void ab initio Provision of S.138 of the Act is not attracted. (Virender Singh Vs Laxmi Narain & Anr.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 750 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 2039 (DELHI) : 2007 CRILJ 2262 : 2007(5)
AIRBOMR 765 : 2006(135) DLT 273 : 2007(2) KERLJ 31
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course Partnership business dissolved - Cheque of Rs.40, 000/- entrusted to brother of complainant Agreement reduced to writing - Cheque drawn and handed over to brother of complainant could
not have been made use of by the complainant, unless the complainant has a case that accused
did not honour the agreement and that consequent on that his brother had handed over the
cheque and thus he became a holder in due course - Transaction relating to cheque not as
alleged in complaint - No offence is made out u/s 138 of the Act - No reason to interfere in the
order of acquittal. (Madamuttathil Abdul Razak Vs M.Yousaf), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 759
(KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1025 (KERALA)
#12: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory Cheque signed by drawer - Cheque filled up by some other person putting the date and amount
- Drawer cannot get absolved of the liability u/s 138 of the Act. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs
T.K.Ramankutty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA)
#13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of
Chairman and Director of Company - Concurrent finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court
that accused were in charge of and were responsible to company for conduct of its business Such finding needs no interference in revision. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592
(KARNATAKA)
Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033
(P&H)
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Transitory bail - Jurisdiction - Dishonour of cheque
- Accused living at Chandigarh - Case pending before Court at Jaipur - Punjab and Haryana High
Court granted transitory bail for 21 days - Punjab and Haryana High Court can grant anticipatory
bail for transitory period. (Gurmit Kaur Vs U.T. Chandigarh), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 067
(P&H)
#25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued
towards time barred debt - Once the cheque is issued, accused cannot contend that it is not in
respect of legally enforceable debt - Time barred debt is also valid consideration.
(S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) :
2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA)
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Money lending business Question as to complainant having no money lending licence is not relevant in a complaint filed
u/s 138 NI Act which is more in quasi civil and criminal in nature. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs
S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
592 (KARNATAKA)
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Notice issued
but received back with endorsement `no such addressee' - Cheque presented against and
dishonoured again - Notice issued again - Cause of action arises only on receipt of second notice
- Limitation starts to run from receipt of second notice. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs T.K.Ramankutty &
Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action arose
within State of Kerala but complaint filed in a Court outside the State of Kerala - Kerala High
Court is not competent to quash the complaint or interfere with the proceedings before a
criminal court, outside the jurisdiction of the Court. (Meenakshi Sathish (Mrs.) Vs Southern
Petrochemical Industries & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (KERALA) (FB) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 798 (KERALA) (FB)
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of witness - Bank
witness produced but through oversight the dishonoured cheque and memo issued by Bank not
exhibited - It is a case of oversight and not an attempt to fill in the lacuna - Production of
cheque and memo is necessary for the just decision of a complaint - Application allowed.
(Janeshwar Dutt Vs Sanjiv Kumar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 693 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 833 (P&H)
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Chairman or
Director - Pleading - There must be an averment that the person who is vicariously liable for
commission of the offence of the Company both was incharge of and was responsible for the
conduct of the business of the Company - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not
disjunctively. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 708 (S.C.)
#6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - Recall
of order - Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the summoning order - A Magistrate does not
have and, thus, cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.)
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors Pleading - As a result of fall out of non payment negotiations were held between parties wherein
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 took part - Held, there is no doubt that ingredients of S.141 of the Act
stand satisfied. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.)
#8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint on
ground that complainant is not a holder in due course - Question can be decided only when
parties lead evidence - No ground to quash complaint. (Anil Kumar Jaiswal Vs State & Anr.),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 982
(ALLAHABAD)
#9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint - Not
proper to dismiss complaint - Complaint should be kept pending till the ripening of cause of
action or complaint to be returned with an advice to the complainant for presentation after
completion of necessary statutory period. (V.S.Shivadas Vs Ramanath Shetty & Anr.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 747 (KARNATAKA)
#10: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt
or liability - Cheque issued in discharge of liability arising out of an agreement void ab initio Provision of S.138 of the Act is not attracted. (Virender Singh Vs Laxmi Narain & Anr.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 750 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 2039 (DELHI) : 2007 CRILJ 2262 : 2007(5)
AIRBOMR 765 : 2006(135) DLT 273 : 2007(2) KERLJ 31
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course Partnership business dissolved - Cheque of Rs.40, 000/- entrusted to brother of complainant Agreement reduced to writing - Cheque drawn and handed over to brother of complainant could
not have been made use of by the complainant, unless the complainant has a case that accused
did not honour the agreement and that consequent on that his brother had handed over the
cheque and thus he became a holder in due course - Transaction relating to cheque not as
alleged in complaint - No offence is made out u/s 138 of the Act - No reason to interfere in the
order of acquittal. (Madamuttathil Abdul Razak Vs M.Yousaf), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 759
(KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1025 (KERALA)
#12: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory Cheque signed by drawer - Cheque filled up by some other person putting the date and amount
- Drawer cannot get absolved of the liability u/s 138 of the Act. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs
T.K.Ramankutty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA)
#13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of
Chairman and Director of Company - Concurrent finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court
that accused were in charge of and were responsible to company for conduct of its business Such finding needs no interference in revision. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592
(KARNATAKA)
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Revision - Every error is
not justification for invoking revisional powers - Unless the alleged infraction of procedure
resulted in miscarriage of justice, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs
Abdul Kareem), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA)
#15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Drawer of
cheque regular customer and purchasing goods on credit - Drawer admitting balance amount
shown as due in running account, as true and correct - Dismissal of complaint on ground of non
production of invoices relating to sales of goods held, not proper - Accused liable to conviction.
(Ganesh Enterprises, Bangalore Vs D.R.Sarala), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) :
2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 524 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 942 (KAR) : 2007 CLC 1004 :
2007(2) AIRKARR 199 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 501 : 2007(53) ALLINDCAS 576 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR
801 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 131
#16: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Production of books of
account maintained by complainant - Permissible only when debt or liability is disputed by
accused and existence of account books/papers is admitted by complainant. (Rajeev Soni Vs
Indresh Singh), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 782 (M.P.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 888
(M.P.)
#17: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of complainant for
cross examination when the case was at the stage of pronouncement of judgment - Not clear as
to what type of questions are necessary to be put to the complainant - At the fag end of trial,
reopening of trial cannot be permitted and complainant cannot be recalled for cross
examination. (Rajkumar Vs Smt.Gunmala & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 798 (M.P.)
#18: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Firm - Cheque issued in
name of firm but complaint filed by a firm different from the one in whose name cheque was
issued - Notice issued by firm which was different from the one in whose name cheque was
issued - Notice issued in itself defective - Entire proceedings vitiated on this ground alone.
(Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Bhojarajan), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS)
#19: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint filed
through power of attorney holder - Authority letter or power of attorney whereby attorney was
authorised to file complaint on behalf of company not filed - Complaint, held, rightly dismissed.
(Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Bhojarajan), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS)
#20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay of 3 days in filing
complaint- Condonation - Delay can be condoned only on issuance of notice to accused. (Sajjan
Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 812
(KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 103 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 725 (KAR.) :
2007 CRILJ 482 : 2007(2) ALJ 313 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 182 : 2006(48) ALLINDCAS 717 : ILR(KANT.)
2006 KAR 3771 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 498
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security
for repayment of loan - Cheque will continue to be one issued for discharge of liability as
contemplated under Section 138 of the Act. (Rathikumar Vs Santhamma), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 024 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 210 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2643 : 2007(3) AKAR 423 : 2007(5)
AIRBOMR 865 : 2006(4) KERLT 308
#22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company Complaint against company and its Directors - Specific averment has to be made in complaint
that at the time the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and
responsible for the conduct of business of the company - This averment is an essential
requirement of Section 141 of the Act - Without this averment in complaint, requirement of
Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H)
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint against
firm and its five partners - Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and
responsible persons of the firm - No ground made out to quash the proceedings. (Luxmi Devi Vs
Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033
(P&H)
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Transitory bail - Jurisdiction - Dishonour of cheque
- Accused living at Chandigarh - Case pending before Court at Jaipur - Punjab and Haryana High
Court granted transitory bail for 21 days - Punjab and Haryana High Court can grant anticipatory
bail for transitory period. (Gurmit Kaur Vs U.T. Chandigarh), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 067
(P&H)
#25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued
towards time barred debt - Once the cheque is issued, accused cannot contend that it is not in
respect of legally enforceable debt - Time barred debt is also valid consideration.
(S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) :
2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA)
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138(a)-- - `Drawn' - Cheque or instrument must
be said to have been drawn on the date it bears for purposes of computation of period of its
validity even though it was drawn or prepared on a different date. (M.Venkateswara Rao Vs
Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A.P.) : 1993 (1) BANKING
CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0468
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138(a)-- - Post dated cheque - Post dated
cheque becomes a cheque under the Act on the date which is written on the said cheque and
the six months period is to be reckoned from the said date. (Anil Kumar Sawhney Vs Gulshan
Rai), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (S.C.) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0038 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.)
0150 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0001 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0446 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0699 : 1994 (79)
COMP. CASES 0150 : 1993 (3) CRIMES 1064 : 1994 (1) KLT 0111 : 1993 (6) JT 0280 : 1994 (1) SLJ
Addition of parties (2) Adding Stamps and signatures (3) Correction in signatures and writings Are all material alterations. (Jawahar Trading Corporation Vs K.K.Ramdas & Ors.), 1990 CIVIL
COURT CASES 183 (KERALA)
#11: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Document which is not a bill of exchange
or promissory note, even if insufficiently stamped can be admitted in evidence on payment of
penal stamp duty. (Kundan Mal Vs Nand Kishore), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 82 (RAJASTHAN)
#12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Loan advanced on execution of promissory
note and mortgage deed - Trial Court disallowing part of the claim on the ground that the said
amount was not shown in the statement of account - Held, clerical lapse cannot wipe out
contractual liability flowing from promissory note and mortgage deed. (Bank of Baroda Vs
Pandurang Bala Saheb Nalavade & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (BOMBAY)
#13: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Promissory note - Presence of default
clause by itself will not make a document not a promissory note, if it otherwise satisfies the
mandatory requirement of a promise to pay to the order or bearer. (Stamp Act, 1899, S.2(22),
2(5)(b). (Alikunju Hamsa Vs Varghese George), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (KERALA)
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Promissory note is not re-quired to be
attested - If it is attested by witnesses it will not make the same any less a promissory note if
the instrument is made payable to order or bearer. (Stamp Act, 1899, S.2(22), 2(5)(b). (Alikunju
Hamsa Vs Varghese George), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (KERALA)
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 19-- - Promissory note - endorsement on
reverse that interest need not be paid if amount is paid within one month - Whether affect the
character of the instrument as payable on demand - Held, no. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama
Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA)
#16: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Promissory note - Essential requisites `Promise', absence of word, not sufficient to declare that document is not a promissory note.
(Sankaran Namboodiripad Vs Vijayan), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (KERALA)
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - `Promissory note' - Tests to determine (i) Is
the sum to be paid a sum of money and is that sum certain? (ii) Is the payment to be made to or
to order of a person who is certain or to the bearer of the instrument? (iii) Has the maker signed
the document? (iv) Is the promise to pay made in the instrument the substance of the
instrument? and (v) Did the parties intend that the document should be a promissory note?
(Sankaran Namboodiripad Vs Vijayan), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (KERALA)
#18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4-- - Pronote - Age of ink in signature and body
of pronote - Plea of signatures obtained on blank paper - Held, it would be just and proper
exercise of discretion to send the document to Handwriting Expert for his opinion as regards the
age of inks in signature and body of pronote. (Penumastha Ramachandra Raju Vs Gaddam Raja
Sekhar Reddy), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 169 (A.P.)
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 19, 4-- - Promissory note - `on demand' means
debt is due and payable immediately, at once of forthwith. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama
Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA)
#20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 4-- - Pronote - Payee's name left blank Person to whom it is delivered can fill his name or of any person as payee - Such authority being
statutory and also coupled with interest, death of executant of such inchoate instrument, does
not put end to such authority - However, legal representatives of executant are not precluded to
contend that person holding pronote has no such authority. (H.S.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.),
2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC)
871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43)
ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 118-- - Promissory note - Containing
signature of one witness but his name not mentioned - Said witness not examined - Execution
not proved - Merely because the document bears the signatures of executant it does not
amount to accepting the liability in view of specific denial of execution of promissory note and
acknowledgement of debt. (Canara Bank Vs Vara Trading Company & Ors.), 2006(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 707 (KARNATAKA) (DB)
cheque - Dishonour of pay order - Provision is not attracted. (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab &
Sind Bank), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING)
0762
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 6, 13-- - Explanation (1) - Cheque - Scoring of
the word `bearer' - Does not make it non transferable - Endorsee becomes a holder in due
course. (M.George & Bros. Vs Cherian), 1990 CIVIL COURT 241 (KERALA)
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 6, 13-- - Explanation (1) - Cheque - Scoring of
the word `bearer' - Does not make it non transferable - Endorsee becomes a holder in due
course. (M.George & Bros. Vs Cherian), 1990 CIVIL COURT 241 (KERALA)
#2: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 13-- - Negotiable instrument - An endorsement
of repayment on the promissory note cannot be said to be a negotiable instrument.
(Seethalakshmi Ammal Vs T.P.Srinivasa Naicker), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 661 (MADRAS)
#1: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 15-- - Endorsement - There must be a clear
indication to make the payment by endorser to endorsee. (State Bank of India Vs Smt.Sainam
Ningol Thambal Devi), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (GAUHATI)
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 50, 15-- - Pronote - Endorsement and
consequential Passing of the property in the pronote made subject to certain conditions Indorsee not fulfilling those conditions - There is no valid transfer. (Santhamma Vs Devaki
Amma), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (KERALA)
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 16-- - Word `Assigned' used in endorsement
made on the back of pronote be understood as a direction to pay the amounts mentioned
therein to or to the order of a specified person - It is an endorsement in full falling under Section
16 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and not a transfer of any actionable claim falling under
S.130 of Transfer of Property Act - Held, there can be assignment only of a debt and not
assignment of any promissory note - Intention be gathered from words actually used in
endorsement - Real intention is only endorsement of pronotes in favour of plaintiff though the
word `assigned' is used. (M/s Mulji Mehta and Sons and others Vs C.Mohan Krishna), 1997
(SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 100 (A.P.)
#1: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 18-- - Amount in figures and words different Amount sta
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 19-- - Promissory note - endorsement on
reverse that interest need not be paid if amount is paid within one month - Whether affect the
character of the instrument as payable on demand - Held, no. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama
Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA)
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 19-- - Pronote in which no time for payment is
specified is one payable on demand. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT
CASES 05 (KERALA)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 19, 4-- - Promissory note - `on demand' means
debt is due and payable immediately, at once of forthwith. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama
Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA)
KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 19, 4-- - Promissory note - `on demand' means
debt is due and payable immediately, at once of forthwith. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama
Sastrikal), 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA)
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 20-- - Pronote - Payee's name - Space left
blank - Payee can enter his name later on - Does not amount to alteration as statute itself
provides for such a course to be adopted when said document is left blank. (H.S.Srinivasa Vs
Girijamma & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) :
2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR
257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ
10
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20-- - Cheque - Estoppel from denying the
liability under the cheque issued - S.20 of the Act does not apply because S.20 applies only with
regard to incohate negotiable instruments - So far as the cheques are concerned, they don't
require any stamp under the Stamp Act in force. (C.T.Joseph Vs I.V.Philip), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 224 (KERALA)
#3: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20-- - Promissory note - Blank - Holder in due
course can fill up the blanks and negotiate the instrument. (K.Mani Vs Elumalai), 2003(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 247 (MADRAS)
#4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 4-- - Pronote - Payee's name left blank Person to whom it is delivered can fill his name or of any person as payee - Such authority being
statutory and also coupled with interest, death of executant of such inchoate instrument, does
not put end to such authority - However, legal representatives of executant are not precluded to
contend that person holding pronote has no such authority. (H.S.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.),
2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC)
871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43)
ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10
#5: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 118-- - Promissory note - Once the
promisor signs the promissory note format, it becomes inchoate document and thereupon the
promisee may fill it up and file a suit. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar), 2008(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS)
#6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Undated
cheque - When a drawer deliver a signed cheque, he gives an authority to the holder to put a
date of his choice. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY)
#7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque
- It is open to a person to sign and deliver a blank or incomplete cheque and is equally open for
the holder of cheque to fill up blanks and specify the amount therein. (Purushottam Vs Manohar
K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 682 (BOMBAY)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused
moved an application for sending the cheque to handwriting expert - Held, that S.20 of the Act
confers only a prima facie right, that too conditional upon the holder of a negotiable instrument
- Adducing evidence in support of defence is a valuable right - Allowed. (T.Nagappa Vs
Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010
#1: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 118-- - Promissory note - Once the
promisor signs the promissory note format, it becomes inchoate document and thereupon the
promisee may fill it up and file a suit. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar), 2008(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS)
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 4-- - Pronote - Payee's name left blank Person to whom it is delivered can fill his name or of any person as payee - Such authority being
statutory and also coupled with interest, death of executant of such inchoate instrument, does
not put end to such authority - However, legal representatives of executant are not precluded to
contend that person holding pronote has no such authority. (H.S.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.),
2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC)
871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43)
ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 27-- - Provision is applicable to civil as well as
criminal liabilities under the Act. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 27-- - Notice issued and complaint filed by
Advocate on instructions given by Power of attorney holder of payee and not by payee himself Not illegal. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) :
2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059
takes place. (S.S.V.Prasad Vs Y.Suresh Kumar & Anr.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 759 (A.P.) :
2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 608 (A.P.) : AIR 2005 A.P. 37 : 2004(22) ALLINDCAS 697 :
2004(5) ANDHLD 57 : 2004(5) ANDHLT 814 : 2005(1)BANKCLR 557 : 2005(1) BANKCAS 330 :
2005(1) CIVLJ 145
#1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 79-- - Interest pendente lite - It is discretion of
court to award contractual rate of interest or award a lesser rate of interest - Future interest Court is required to grant future interest also i.e. interest till realization of the decretal amount.
(Rajendra Kumar Vs Keshari Chand), 1989 CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (RAJASTHAN)
#1: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 80-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Plaintiff is
entitled to interest at rate of 18% per annum on outstanding amount of cheque from date of
dishonour till realisation of amount. (Chanana Steel Tubes Pvt.Ltd. Vs M/s Jaitu Steel Tubes
Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 370 (H.P.)
#2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 80-- - Interest - Agreement between parties not
to charge interest - Cheque given towards repayment of loan - Cheque dishonoured - Suit
instituted on dishonour of cheque - Held, agreement cases to bind parties - Debtor is liable to
pay interest as envisaged u/s 80 of the Act. (P.Mohan Vs Basavaraju), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 406 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2003 KANT. 213 : 2003 AIR KANT. HCR 990 : 2003(1) ALL IND CAS
321 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 237 : 2003(2) ICC 930 : ILR (KANT.) 2003(1) KAR 931 : 2003(3) KANT LJ
138 : 2003(4) REC CIV R 13
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 80-- - Interest - When suit is filed interest
payable at 18% per annum is only upto date of institution of suit - Interest from date of filing of
suit is not covered by S.80 NI Act but is governed by S.34 CPC. (Thankachan Vs Catholic Syrian
Bank Ltd.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 657 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 DOC 6 (KER.) : 2006(5) ALJ
(EE) 673 : 2006(44) ALLINDCAS 737 : 2006(2) KERLJ 679 : 2006(3) KLT 53 : 2006(4) RECCIVR
392
1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 82-- - Requirement u/s 82 of the Act - The
maker, acceptor or endorser 'makes payment' - The emphasis must be placed on the words
'makes payment'. (Rajesh Varma Vs Aminex Holdings & Investments & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 160 (BOMBAY)
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 85-- - Forged bearer cheque Liability of Bank Unless Bank proves that customer had knowledge of such forgery it cannot escape its liability
and is bound to make good the loss - In the instant case as the customer had a current account
as such Bank is not liable to pay any interest on the amount which is liable to pay to customer.
(Babulal Agarwal Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 125 (CALCUTTA)
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 87-- - Pronote - Material alterations-(1)
Addition of parties (2) Adding Stamps and signatures (3) Correction in signatures and writings Are all material alterations. (Jawahar Trading Corporation Vs K.K.Ramdas & Ors.), 1990 CIVIL
COURT CASES 183 (KERALA)
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 87-- - Cheque - Material alteration - Holder of
the undated cheque has got the implied authority to put the date on the cheque - Once the date
is shown on the cheque, the burden is on the drawer of the cheque that the payee has no
authority to do so. (Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan Vs Radhakrishnan), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 556 (KERALA)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 87-- - Cheque - Material alteration - Putting a
date on the cheque by the payee will not amount to material alteration rendering the
instrument void. (Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan Vs Radhakrishnan), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
556 (KERALA)
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 87-- - Subsequent insertion of amount and
name of payee without consent of drawer amounts to material alteration rendering the
instrument void as in the absence of certainty regarding the amount and the payee at the time
of issue of cheque the cheque cannot be said to be a valid one - However, subsequent putting of
date in an undated cheque would not always amount to material alteration. (Capital Syndicate
Vs Jameela), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675
(KERALA)
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 87-- - Cheque - Correction in amount of
cheque without consent of maker of cheque - It is material alteration which amounts to
cancellation of the instrument - Criminal prosecution cannot be launched on it. (Ramachandran
Vs Dinesan), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 197
(KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 353 : 2005 CRI LJ 1237 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 666 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS
667 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI.) 177 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 289 : 2005 BANK J 571 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 371 :
2005(2) CUR CRI R 457 : 2005(2) ICC 441 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER. 390 : 2005(1) KLJ 296
#1: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 92, 138-- - A firm having current account with a
Bank - Bank purchasing cheques from firm and crediting the account of the firm - Cheques
subsequently dishonoured/lost - Bank not informing the firm and after five years bank
appropriating the amount lying to the credit of the firm - Firm lost its remedy to recover the
amount from owner - Action of bank not lawful. (State Bank of India Vs M/s Jackson Maye & Co.),
1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (DELHI)
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 4, 118-- - Promissory note - Containing
signature of one witness but his name not mentioned - Said witness not examined - Execution
not proved - Merely because the document bears the signatures of executant it does not
amount to accepting the liability in view of specific denial of execution of promissory note and
acknowledgement of debt. (Canara Bank Vs Vara Trading Company & Ors.), 2006(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 707 (KARNATAKA) (DB)
#2: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 20, 118-- - Promissory note - Once the
promisor signs the promissory note format, it becomes inchoate document and thereupon the
promisee may fill it up and file a suit. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar), 2008(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS)
#3: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Promissory note - Signatures admitted Statutory presumption u/s 118 of the Act operates. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar),
2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS)
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Pronote - Execution of pronote and
receipt if proved then there is presumption of passing of consideration - Plaintiff is not further
required to prove his capacity to make the payment at the time of execution of the pronote and
receipt. (Jit Singh Vs Nachhatar Singh & Ors.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 044 (P&H)
#5: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Promissory note - Signatures admitted Circumstances explained under which promissory note was signed - Execution denied - Does not
tantamount to proof of execution of promissory note - Statutory presumption of passing
consideration as provided u/s 118 of the Act cannot be drawn. (Shyamrao Vs Champalal s/o
Suklal Kunabi), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (M.P.)
#6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Pronote - Consideration - Presumption Promissory note alleged to be executed under coercion and not voluntary - When execution is
admitted there is presumption of consideration - To disprove the presumption defendant has to
bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which Court may either
believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent
man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not exist.
(Manapragada Krishna Murthy Vs M/s Savani Transport Pvt. Ltd., & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 685 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 990 (A.P.)
#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Pronote - Consideration - If execution is
proved there is presumption of consideration - Scribe of pronote in his evidence stated that
defendant was not present when he filled up the blank pronote and no consideration was paid in
his presence - Attesting witnesses not examined - Held, plaintiff has failed to prove the case of
execution of pronote and payment of consideration. (C.Sesha Reddy Vs T.Basavana Goud),
2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (KARNATAKA)
#8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Pronote - Execution - Contention of
defendant that he had only signed on the stamp and rest of the document was blank - Such an
admission cannot be construed as an admission of execution of the pronote. (C.Sesha Reddy Vs
T.Basavana Goud), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (KARNATAKA)
#9: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118-- - Pronote and receipt - Execution duly
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque Consideration - Presumption - Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the
existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused can raise a probable defence
from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption could
be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of
complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of
complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If
accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of
consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration
- The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused
is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay
Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY)
#20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque Consideration - Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of
accused to prove that he did not get the consideration - Presumption in favour of complainant
continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that
presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY)
#21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque Accused alleging misuse of cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be
raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing
evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229
(S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR
2008 SC 2010
#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Cheque - Signature on the
cheque admitted - Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration
on the date which the cheque bears - S.139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of
the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability - The burden is on the accused to
rebut the aforesaid presumption. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 :
1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC
3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999
CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 :
1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR
(SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558
#23: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque Presumption - Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - When presumption
u/s 139 can be drawn it is superfluous and unnecessary to draw or bank on the presumption u/s
118 of the Act - As the graver presumption of existence of consideration of a specified variety, is
available it is not necessary at all to go back to the presumption u/s 118(a) of the Act.
(P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5)
AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR
451
#24: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - Presumption under Sections 118
and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge of a liability already existing under
the promissory note. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729
(KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007
CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779
: 2007(1) RECCIVR 451
#25: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 118-- - S.118 creates a presumption that
drawer of a cheque is a debtor in respect of the amount of the cheque and drawee is the
creditor - S.139 creates a corresponding presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque Presumption created by Ss.118 and 139 are only permissible presumptions in law from different
perspectives - Both presumptions are rebuttable. (Arvind Manekalal Tailor Vs State of Gujarat),
2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (GUJARAT)
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 118-- - Cheque - Execution denied - Presumption under
S.118 - Only when due execution is established. (Gangadhara Panicker Vs Haridasan), 1990
appearance of complainant on date fixed for appearance of accused - Accused acquitted Complainant had right to file special leave to appeal to High Court u/s 378(4) - No appeal filed Revision is not maintainable before Sessions Judge. (Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Anr.),
2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 062 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 120
(ALLAHABAD)
#5: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Stop payment - In no way
absolve statutory liability cast upon accused - Accused liable to be punished u/s 138 of the Act.
(Balasubbaraj Vs R.Narayanan), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS)
#6: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of loan
amount and not demand for payment of cheque amount and further demand of damages on
account of mental torture - Demand not in accordance with requirement of the provision of
S.138 of the Act - Complaint founded on this demand notice is not maintainable. (Kapil
Aggarwal Vs Raghu Vias), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (DELHI)
#7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - During
pendency of complaint Court allowed the son of complainant, his general power of attorney
holder, to continue the proceedings - No ground to quash the proceedings. (Bodapati Naga
Krishna Gandhi Vs Sri Ilapakurthi Sri Ramulu & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 147 (A.P.) :
2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 271 (A.P.)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Sentence of
simple imprisonment and fine - Appeal against - Appeal/Revision cannot be dismissed for non
deposit of amount of fine. (Vijay D.Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 164 (S.C.)
#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back
unserved with endorsement 'addressee long absent and return to sender' - Order taking
cognizance not liable to be quashed - However, the allegation that accused refused to receive
notice even after due information given by postal authorities are matters for trial. (Asif Akbani
Vs P.K.Mani), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 184 (MADRAS) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 221
(MADRAS)
#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses
before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by
the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.),
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212
(BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3)
AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339
#11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Issuance of process - Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs
Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB)
: 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372
(BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339
#12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Endorsement on cheque
`sans recourse' - Contention that cheque itself speaks that payee will not have recourse to file
the complaint, taking cognizance is barred - Held, when once cheque is dishonoured, the
endorsement on the cheque made by accused without knowledge of the complainant and in
absence of mentioning the said fact in reply notice given by accused, the prosecution cannot be
quashed exonerating the accused from the liability u/s 138 of the Act. (Maganti Ganta Avadhani
Vs Kopuri Sreenivasa Rao), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 034 (A.P.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 294 (A.P.)
#13: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Partner Specific averments in complaint revealing role played by them and that they looked after day to
day affairs of the firm - Plea that petitioner was not a partner in firm or that he was not involved
in day to day affairs of firm - Such fact to be established at trial - No ground to quash complaint.
(Chhedi Lal Gupta Vs Shri Suresh Damani & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 672
(CALCUTTA) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (CALCUTTA)
and others - Complainant failed to show that he had any financial capacity to advance such a
huge amount - Accused acquitted. (K.Prakashan Vs P.K.Surenderan), 2007(3) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 429 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 371 (S.C.)
#20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Complaint by one of its Directors - Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board
of Directors - Held, on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction
imposed. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY)
#21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Giving notice' is not the same as
`receipt of notice' - Giving is a process of which receipt is the accomplishment - It is for the
payee to perform the former process by sending the notice to the drawer at the correct address
- Once notice is dispatched his part is over and the next depends on what the sendee does.
(C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) :
2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7)
SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 :
2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185
#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Claim as to non receipt of - Drawer can
still make the payment of cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons and can
absolve himself of prosecution u/s 138 of the Act - If drawer does not make payment of cheque
amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons then plea of proper service of notice is not
available to him. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC
555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185
#23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent by registered post at correct
address - Notice received back with postal endorsement that addressee was abroad - Held,
provision of S.138 is sufficiently complied with. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.),
2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC
57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185
#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Absence of pleading that notice was sent
at the correct address of the drawer by registered post acknowledgement due - However,
returned envelope annexed to complaint and thus it formed part of the complaint - Returned
enveloped showed that it was sent by registered post acknowledgement due to the correct
address with endorsement that `the addressee was abroad' - Held, requirement of S.138 of the
Act is sufficiently complied with. (C.C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.), 2007(2) APEX
COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 037 (S.C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 :
2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) 185
#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Extension of date of
cheque - When a drawer revalidates cheque from time to time, which is permissible, then on
each occasion there is a fresh promise as envisaged by S.25 of Contract Act as well as an
acknowledgment within the meaning of S.18 of Limitation Act if such revalidation is made within
the period of limitation - Held, liability is legally enforceable liability. (Vijay Ganesh Gondhlekar
Vs Indranil Jairaj Damale), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (BOMBAY)
#1: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - There was no debt or
liability at the time when cheque was given - Complaint not maintainable - Summoning order
quashed. (Exports India & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 198 (DELHI) :
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 252 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 269 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 599 :
2007(137) DLT 193
#2: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company Notice to company - Director or person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of
company cannot be prosecuted when notice is not issued to him - Statutory notice to every
person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs
Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3)
CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB)
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - Has to
be on the basis of allegations in complaint and preliminary evidence - Defence set up in reply to
notice not to be looked into at that stage. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar Industries),
2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H)
#14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - It is for
drawer to rebut presumption - In absence of rebuttal evidence, it is to be presumed that cheque
was issued for discharge of debt or other liability. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA)
#15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay Cannot be condoned without notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs
M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA)
#16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - Liability - Pleading There should be an assertion in the complaint that the named accused are directors of the
company and that they are incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the
business of the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX
COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5)
SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 :
2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860
#17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - A person is entitled
to presume that directors of the company are incharge of the affairs of the company - If any
restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for
the directors to establish it at the trial. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited),
2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511
: 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J.
2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860
#18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - When the offender is a
company, every person, who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of and
was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, shall also be
deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar
Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206
(S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 :
2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 :
2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Even
if the signature in the cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed
by the accused. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237
(KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007
CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Blank cheque - It cannot be presumed that
an implied authority is given to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt
etc. - There must be allegation in complaint and evidence that blank cheque was issued with
implied authority to holder to fill up the same. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007
NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR
875
#21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Cheque
issued for cost of goods to be supplied by drawee - Bank account closed after issuance of
cheque - Cheque presented to bank for realisation and same dishonoured - No criminal liability
for the reasons that (i) cheque when issued was blank; (ii) Cheque when presented for payment,
was time barred as it was presented for payment after expiry of six months reckoned from date
on which it was issued in blank; (iii) cheque when issued was not towards any existing debt or
liability - Order of trial Court acquitting accused calls for no interference. (Vishnudas Vs Vijaya
Mahantesh), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 951 (KAR.) : 2007(2)
AIRKARR 326 : 2007(55) ALLINDCAS 719 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 1708 : 2007(3) KANTLJ 122 :
2007(4) RECCIVR 213
#22: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Despatch of notice
within 30 days is the requirement of law - Date of receipt of notice is not crucial or relevant.
(Ravi Vs Kuttappan), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 337 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 071 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1955 (KERALA) : 2007(3) KERLT 31 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 28
#23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through
registered post at correct address - Notice received back `unclaimed' - Held, notice is presumed
to have been served. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) :
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA)
#24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Forms part of
the record and it need not be marked and non marking is not fatal to the complainant's case.
(Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA)
#25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of proceedings In proceedings u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. High Court is not to go into the truthfulness of the allegations Once a complaint discloses the commission of an offence, the veracity of the allegations is not
to be tested in proceedings u/s 482 of the Code as the same had to be tested in the backdrop of
the evidence which is yet to come on record. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. Vs M/s.Kumar
Industries), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H)
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence - Two cheque of
the value of Rs.55, 500/- - Fine imposed Rs.2500/- in each case without any direction to pay
amount due on cheques bounced - Complainant should at least be compensated with the
amount due by the accused on the cheque issued by him - That should be the rule unless there
are good reasons to depart from the same - Sentence imposed set aside and case remanded
with a direction to pass appropriate sentence in accordance with law. (Shri Basavraj
D.Allayyanvar Vs Shri Santosh Kapadi), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 437 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2007 NOC 1358 (BOMBAY) : 2007 CRILJ 2220 :
2007(3) AIRBOMR 314 : 2007 ALLMR(CR() 1063 : 2007(1) BOMCR (CRI) 1028
#2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes - Cheque
is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or
liability - Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted
with. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Bhave & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY)
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Director who negotiated for obtaining financial assistance on behalf of the
Company cannot be held vicariously liable - It does not give rise to an inference that he was
responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company - Vicarious liability on the part of a person
must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (K.Srikanth
Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) :
2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9)
SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ
226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595
#4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - It must be pleaded that accused was responsible to the Company for the
conduct of the business of the Company. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. &
Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) :
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT
2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC
595
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Must be pleaded and proved - It cannot be a subject matter of mere
inference. (K.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 2007(3) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 850 (S.C.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR
CRI. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595
#6: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Undelivered letter
or A.D. not received back - Allowance of period of service of notice which at least should be a
week is admissible in this regard - Period to file complaint is thus extended to a further period of
a week. (ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs Prafull Chandra), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (DELHI) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 731 (DELHI)
#7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Son of deceased partner Cannot be impleaded as an accused merely for the reason that he happens to be the son of
deceased partner. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR
2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3)
RECCIVR 595
#8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Holder in due course - Cheque payable to bearer
- Respondent is deemed to be holder in due course of cheque - Has locus to file complaint on
dishonour of cheque. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR
2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3)
RECCIVR 595
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a
complaint u/s 138 of the Act, Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt
or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The burden of proving that the cheque had not been
issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala &
Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA)
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Unless
amount is claimable in civil suit, direction u/s 357(1) or S.357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of
compensation cannot be issued. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC
2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 30-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - When
dishonour of cheque takes place, certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated. (Sathyan
Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5)
AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923
#12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - High Court of one State cannot
quash criminal proceedings pending in a Court within jurisdiction of another High Court. (Tripti
Vyas Vs M/s Ahlers India Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 469 (RAJASTHAN)
#13: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Interest Direction can be issued u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C. for payment of interest. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs
Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889
(KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR
857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923
#14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine/or compensation Power of court to impose fine may or may not be limited but power to award compensation is
not - Consideration for payment of compensation is somewhat different from payment of fine.
(P.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Shankar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.C.)
#15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards
repayment of loan - Money lender - Not possible to lend money without any document - Date of
lending money not mentioned in complaint and notice - Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning
loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced - Presumption u/s 139 is not
available - Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan
given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present
proceedings instituted by him to realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable -
per annum allowed. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.) :
2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923
#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Only such person is liable if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was
responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (N.K.Wahi Vs
Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.)
#2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent as per
registered post and also as per UPC - Notice sent as per registered post returned by postman by
endorsing false report - Notice sent under UPC received by addressee - Service of notice denied
by filing affidavit - Same not controverted by filing counter affidavit - It is liable to be deemed
that there was no sufficient service of notice - Proceedings quashed. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises
& Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD)
#3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Accused took plea that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security - It is not
a ground for quashing complaint - Such matter has to be looked into at stage of trial. (M/s Jai
Durga Enterprises & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD)
#4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is
necessary to specifically aver in complaint that at the time offence was committed, the person
accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company - Without such an
averment in complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied - No such
averment in complaint - Complaint qua petitioner quashed. (Hazi Abadullah & Ors. Vs State of
Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 393 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 110 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 59 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 755
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 43-- - Dishonour of cheque - Lending of money Cheque issued before amount given by complainant - Cheque is one issued in discharge of the
debt or liability coming u/s 138 of the Act - However, in case cheque is issued in anticipation of
lending money but money is not given to the borrower then consideration fails and S.43 of the
Act comes into play. (George Vs Kamarudeen), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KERALA)
#6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Vicarious liability - Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for
an offence committed by the Company that he was in charge and responsible to the Company
for the conduct of its business - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively.
(S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.)
: 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3)
SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC)
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Ingredients of offence u/s
138 of the Act are : (i) a cheque was issued; (ii) the same was presented; (iii) but, it was
dishonoured; (iv) a notice in terms of the said provision was served on the person sought to be
made liable; and (v) despite service of notice, neither any payment was made nor other
obligations, if any, were complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice.
(S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.)
: 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3)
SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed.
(S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.)
: 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3)
SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC)
#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonor of cheque - Company - Director
resigned prior to issuance of cheque - No counter credential projected by complainant Petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. (Lachhman
P.Udhani & Ors. Vs M/s.Redington (India) Ltd.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 135 (MADRAS)
#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Not received by
accused - Cheque presented again - Bank not accepting the cheque - Bank had no occasion
either to honour or dishonour the cheque - No cause of action - Complaint dismissed.
(Manibhadra Marketing Pvt. Ltd & Anr. Vs Chandrakant Manilal Kothari & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 142 (BOMBAY)
#11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 47 - Dishonour of
cheque - Expert opinion - Signature on cheque disputed - Court undertook exercise of naked
comparison of signatures of accused on cheque with other admitted signatures and came to
conclusion that signature on cheque does not appear to be signature of accused - Court should
be assisted by experts opinion - Banker is more competent to say whether it is signature of
accused or not with reference to specimen signatures - Issuance of cheque proved Presumption arises u/s 139 of Act in favour of complainant - Acquittal not valid. (Rajendra
Prasad Vs M.Shivaraj), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KARNATAKA)
#12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issued as security - Even if
cheque is issued as a security for payment, it is negotiable instrument and encashable security
at the hands of payee - Not a ground to exonerate the penal liability u/s 138 of N.I. Act.
(Umaswamy Vs K.N.Ramanath), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 096 (KARNATAKA)
#13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Provision of Section 446 of
Companies Act has no application to the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 138 of NI Act has overriding effect over section 446 of Companies Act - Order staying
proceedings under section 138 because of Section 446 of Companies Act, quashed. (Gyan
Chand Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 176 (RAJASTHAN)
#14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of
attorney holder - Failure to produce power of attorney authorising to lodge complaint and to
give sworn statement on behalf of his principal - Dismissal of complaint for want of proof of
power of attorney justified. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore &
Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475
(KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR
BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491
#15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director There should be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by a Director in the
transaction - There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are
incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Description should be
clear - In absence of any averment or specific evidence the complaint is not entertainable.
(N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.)
#16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Allegations in complaint that respondent accused Nos.2 to 12 were Directors/persons
responsible for carrying out business of company and the liability of accused persons was joint
and several - High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show that
respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed
proceedings against respondents - No reason to interfere. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.)
#17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Part time
Director - No averment in complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day
business of the company or was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of
its business at the time of commission of offence - Petitioner not a signatory of the cheque Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 181 (P&H)
#18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed by
husband on behalf of wife on the basis of authority letter - Husband neither a general nor
special power of attorney holder - In the authority letter it was no where undertaken that the
executant would be bound by the acts done and conducted on her behalf in respect of the
cheque - Held, complainant not competent to institute the complaint - Complaint quashed.
(O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H)
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (a) - `Within a period of six months' -
Date of cheque is not to be excluded in calculating the period of six months. (Nanu Vs Vijayan),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 193 (KERALA)
#20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt Rebuttal of presumption - Ink of signature different from the ink of other writings of cheque Entire cheque amount found not due in view of admission of receipt of certain amount - No
legally enforceable debt - Acquittal, held, proper. (V.Rama Shetty Vs N.Sasidaran Nayar),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 231 (KARNATAKA)
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Appeal Admitted and notice ordered to be issued to the complainant - Non appearance of accused Appeal cannot be dismissed for default - Appellate Court has to peruse the record and pass an
order on merits. (V.R.Jayasankar Vs K.G.Dharman & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 252
(KERALA)
#22: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Winding up
orders of company passed and official liquidator appointed - Complaint against Directors of
Company in respect of cheques presented and dishonoured after winding up orders are passed
is not maintainable. (Ratan Lal Garera & Ors. Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 318 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI)
#23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures denied Handwriting expert - When cheque is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds then there is no
need for handwriting expert to give his opinion on signature on cheque - In case of denial of
signature of drawer of a cheque, the best witness would be the concerned Bank Manager and
not a handwriting expert - Impugned order allowing application not sustainable in law.
(H.M.Satish Vs B.N.Ashok), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 549 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1383 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 2312 : 2007(3)
AIRKARR 58 : 2007(4) AIRBOMR 664 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 936 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 479
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissal in
default - Complaint can be dismissed in default when personal attendance of complaint was
essential on the crucial date - Order dismissing complaint in default set aside as complaint was
dismissed without considering the said question. (Dilawar Singh Vs Pankaj Joshi & Anr.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 355 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 604 (P&H)
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court at the
place of office of Advocate who issued statutory notice has no territorial jurisdiction - Complaint
ordered to be returned for its presentation before the proper Court. (Harihara Puthra Sharma Vs
State of Kerala & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA)
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 143-- (As amended) - Dishonour of cheque - Fine
exceeding Rs.5, 000/- can be imposed in view of amended provision of S.143 of the Act.
(Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523
(BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418
(BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR
893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370
#2: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Process issued - Quashing
of proceedings - Cheque not presented within its validity period i.e. six months - Liability u/s 138
of Act not incurred - Proceedings quashed. (Shrikant Chavan Vs Hotel the Vaishno Devi), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (J&K)
#3: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - For invoking criminal
liability under S.138 of the Act, cheque is required to be presented to the drawee bank or the
payee bank within the period of six months from the date of its issue. (Shrikant Chavan Vs Hotel
the Vaishno Devi), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (J&K)
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Default
sentence - Accused to undergo two months SI on failure to pay compensation amount within two
months - Such default sentence shall lapse at any time when the payment is made either before
or after the default sentence starts running. (K.G.Girish Kumar Vs M/s Muthoot Capital Service
Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
704 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 143 (KER.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 86 : 2007(1) KERLJ 161 : 2007(1)
NOC 195 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ
245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114
#14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship
concern - An employee of a proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the
Act. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001
(S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) :
2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 :
AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR
403 : 2007(5) SCC 103
#15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Seven cheques issued on
different dates - Separate notices issued - Seven complaints filed - Trial for each offence held
separately and accused convicted - Held, it is not obligatory for the trial Court to direct in all
cases that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence - Refusal of
Magistrate to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence
cannot lead to causing miscarriage of justice. (Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra &
Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748
(BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52)
ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370
#16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Seven cheques issued on
different dates - Separate notices issued - Seven complaints are maintainable - However, in case
single notice is issued then all the transactions covered by the notice would be regarded as a
single transaction, permitting a single trial. (Rajendra B.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra &
Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748
(BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52)
ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370
#17: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder Complaint signed by power of attorney holder in his own name and not on behalf of complainant
- Complaint is maintainable and not bad in law. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.by the
Power of Attorney Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB)
#18: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder It is not required to record the sworn affidavit of complainant also on a future date to enable the
Court to exercise its discretion u/ss 202 & 203 of Cr.P.C. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann
rep.by the Power of Attorney Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB)
#19: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint through power
of attorney holder - Power of attorney - If not filed at initial stage can be filed even at a later
stage when validity of the same is questioned and Court then has to decide the genuineness or
the validity of the same. (K.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.by the Power of Attorney
Holder), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683
(MADRAS) (DB)
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Territorial
jurisdiction - Complaint filed in the Court of CJM whereas it had to be filed in the Court of
Magistrate in the same district - CJM erroneously took cognizance - Complaint returned to be
presented in a Court having territorial jurisdiction - Complaint beyond limitation when filed in
Court of Magistrate - Every Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint throughout the
district, but because of division of work that Court may not try a complaint and, therefore, it
may order presentation of complaint at a place so earmarked - Held, once the Court of CJM had
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the period provided for limitation would stop running
from the day it was presented in the said Court - Complaint, held within limitation. (V.K.Soman
Pillai Vs Sabu Jacob & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 945 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2032 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 1042 : 2007(3) ALJ 390 :
2007(5) AKAR 813 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 445 : 2007(49) ALLINDCAS 208 : 2007(1) KERLJ 178 :
2006(4) KERLJ 604 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 591
#21: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Manager filed
complaint - Manager not duly authorized by Board of Directors to sign and file the complaint Not a ground for quashing the complaint. (Bhasin Credit Aid Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 607 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (DELHI)
#22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court at the
place where money was intended to be paid has jurisdiction - Court at place where cheque was
presented for realisation has no jurisdiction to try the offence. (Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs
State of Maharashtra), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (BOMBAY) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 771 (BOMBAY)
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Non supply of goods for which cheque was issued - Not a ground to quash complaint - It is a
matter of fact which has to be proved before a Court of law. (M/s.Shirdi Overseas Imports &
Exports & Anr. Vs M/s.Serve Overseas & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 638 (P&H) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1057 (P&H)
#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Vicarious
liability - Complaint must contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview
of S.141 of the Act so as to make some persons other than company vicariously liable therefor.
(Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) :
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2)
RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007
SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 :
2007(5) SCC 103
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signature in cheque Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution By mere admission of signature right of accused to contend that a blank signed cheque was
misutilised by the payee is not taken away. (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195
(KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 :
2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Money lending business Question as to complainant having no money lending licence is not relevant in a complaint filed
u/s 138 NI Act which is more in quasi civil and criminal in nature. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs
S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
592 (KARNATAKA)
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Notice issued
but received back with endorsement `no such addressee' - Cheque presented against and
dishonoured again - Notice issued again - Cause of action arises only on receipt of second notice
- Limitation starts to run from receipt of second notice. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs T.K.Ramankutty &
Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action arose
within State of Kerala but complaint filed in a Court outside the State of Kerala - Kerala High
Court is not competent to quash the complaint or interfere with the proceedings before a
criminal court, outside the jurisdiction of the Court. (Meenakshi Sathish (Mrs.) Vs Southern
Petrochemical Industries & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (KERALA) (FB) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 798 (KERALA) (FB)
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Recall of witness - Bank
witness produced but through oversight the dishonoured cheque and memo issued by Bank not
exhibited - It is a case of oversight and not an attempt to fill in the lacuna - Production of
cheque and memo is necessary for the just decision of a complaint - Application allowed.
(Janeshwar Dutt Vs Sanjiv Kumar), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 693 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 833 (P&H)
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Chairman or
Director - Pleading - There must be an averment that the person who is vicariously liable for
commission of the offence of the Company both was incharge of and was responsible for the
conduct of the business of the Company - Such requirement must be read conjointly and not
disjunctively. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 708 (S.C.)
#6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - Recall
of order - Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the summoning order - A Magistrate does not
have and, thus, cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.)
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors Pleading - As a result of fall out of non payment negotiations were held between parties wherein
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 took part - Held, there is no doubt that ingredients of S.141 of the Act
stand satisfied. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.C.)
#8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint on
ground that complainant is not a holder in due course - Question can be decided only when
parties lead evidence - No ground to quash complaint. (Anil Kumar Jaiswal Vs State & Anr.),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 982
(ALLAHABAD)
#9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Premature complaint - Not
proper to dismiss complaint - Complaint should be kept pending till the ripening of cause of
action or complaint to be returned with an advice to the complainant for presentation after
completion of necessary statutory period. (V.S.Shivadas Vs Ramanath Shetty & Anr.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 747 (KARNATAKA)
#10: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt
or liability - Cheque issued in discharge of liability arising out of an agreement void ab initio Provision of S.138 of the Act is not attracted. (Virender Singh Vs Laxmi Narain & Anr.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 750 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 2039 (DELHI) : 2007 CRILJ 2262 : 2007(5)
AIRBOMR 765 : 2006(135) DLT 273 : 2007(2) KERLJ 31
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course Partnership business dissolved - Cheque of Rs.40, 000/- entrusted to brother of complainant Agreement reduced to writing - Cheque drawn and handed over to brother of complainant could
not have been made use of by the complainant, unless the complainant has a case that accused
did not honour the agreement and that consequent on that his brother had handed over the
cheque and thus he became a holder in due course - Transaction relating to cheque not as
alleged in complaint - No offence is made out u/s 138 of the Act - No reason to interfere in the
order of acquittal. (Madamuttathil Abdul Razak Vs M.Yousaf), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 759
(KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1025 (KERALA)
#12: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque theory Cheque signed by drawer - Cheque filled up by some other person putting the date and amount
- Drawer cannot get absolved of the liability u/s 138 of the Act. (T.N.Unnikrishnan Vs
T.K.Ramankutty & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA)
#13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of
Chairman and Director of Company - Concurrent finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court
that accused were in charge of and were responsible to company for conduct of its business Such finding needs no interference in revision. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa),
2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592
(KARNATAKA)
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Revision - Every error is
not justification for invoking revisional powers - Unless the alleged infraction of procedure
resulted in miscarriage of justice, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs
Abdul Kareem), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA)
#15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Drawer of
cheque regular customer and purchasing goods on credit - Drawer admitting balance amount
shown as due in running account, as true and correct - Dismissal of complaint on ground of non
production of invoices relating to sales of goods held, not proper - Accused liable to conviction.
(Ganesh Enterprises, Bangalore Vs D.R.Sarala), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) :
2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 524 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 942 (KAR) : 2007 CLC 1004 :
2007(2) AIRKARR 199 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 501 : 2007(53) ALLINDCAS 576 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR
801 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 131
905
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signed blank cheque Defence that a signed blank cheque was handed over by an account holder is inherently
suspicious - Burden rests heavily on shoulders of account holder to claim absolution from
culpable liability. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA)
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued but no
complaint filed - Cheque can be presented for the second time and complaint filed on fresh
cause of action in case : (i) Envelope addressed to the complainant is lost or damaged or
destroyed in transit; (ii) the letter does not reach the respondent for want of correct address; (iii)
the envelope so received by the respondent is short of notice and it is blank; (iv) the letter so
posted is not received by the actual addressee and the postage is stolen in transit; and (v) As
assured and promised by the respondent, the cheque has been tendered for the second time.
(Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 274
(P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) :
2006(4) RECCIVR 905
#12: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Jurisdiction Every Judicial Magistrate in a district has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint - However, only
jurisdictional Magistrate has power to try the same - If any Magistrate not empowered by law to
do any other thing including to take cognizance of an offence, but may have erroneously in
good faith done that thing, his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground that he
was not empowered. (Soman Achari Vs Sabu Jacob), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (KERALA) :
2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA)
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of
payment not made in notice - Held, it is not a legal notice strictly in terms of Section 138(b) of
the Act. (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) :
2006(4) RECCIVR 905
#14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security
for repayment of debt - It is a negotiable instrument - Dishonour of cheque - Drawer of cheque
incurs liability of prosecution under Section 138 of the Act. (S.T.P. Limited, Bangalore Vs Usha
Paints & Decorators, Bangalore & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 614 (KARNATAKA)
#15: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pre mature complaint Cannot be rejected on this ground alone - However, cognizance can be taken on such a
complaint after it is matured. (Yogendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs Ashok Kumar Goyal & Anr.),
2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 387 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 334
(RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 129 (RAJ.) : 2007(1) ALJ (EE) 82 : 2007(2) RAJLW 1501
#16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal - Appeal against It is necessary for Appellate Court to find out as to what facts are established and whether on
the basis of such facts, any presumption get attracted or rebutted in order to draw appropriate
inferences. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423
(BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY)
#17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - It is
open to a person to sign and deliver a blank or incomplete cheque and is equally open for the
holder of cheque to fill up blanks and specify the amount therein. (Purushottam Vs Manohar
K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 682 (BOMBAY)
#18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Undated cheque When a drawer deliver a signed cheque, he gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his
choice. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423
(BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY)
#19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent as per
registered post - Notice received by family member of drawer - No evidence led by drawer to
prove that he did not receive notice through member of his family - Acquittal of accused on
ground of want of service of notice is bad in law - Accused convicted. (Umraz Khan Vs A.Jameel
Ahmed & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 433 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 768 (KARNATAKA)
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - In default
to undergo imprisonment - Such default sentence shall lapse at any time when payment is
made either before or after default sentence starts running. (Girish Vs Muthoot Capital Service
(P) Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 856
(KERALA)
#21: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Notice
given to company - Separate notice to Managing Director who signed the cheque on behalf of
company is not required - Proceedings against Managing Director cannot be quashed.
(Rajkumar Malhotra Vs Bhanwarlal), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 539 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 152 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE)
92 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 553
#22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable
debt - Cheque issued to retiring partner - Specific plea of accused that complainant is still a
partner - Evidence as to retirement from partnership not adduced - When there is failure to
prove factum of retirement from partnership the only reasonable conclusion could be that there
was no existing liability as on date of issuance of cheque - No interference in order of acquittal.
(K.A.Prakash Rao Vs U.Indira Devi & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.P.) : 2007(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 518 (A.P.)
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued - Assurance
given to present cheque again and that it will be honoured - Tendering of cheque for the second
time will not frustrate the cause of action which arose on tendering the cheque for the second
time. (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) :
2006(4) RECCIVR 905
#24: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 142, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Condonation of delay
- An application or affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay is not necessary Sufficient cause can be shown in the complaint itself or in the application for condonation of
delay or in the affidavit, if any, or in other materials which would be sufficient to satisfy the
Court that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified
period. (Abdurehiman Vs Sethu Madhavan), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) :
AIR 2007 NOC 136 (KER.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 : 2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 142, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Condonation of delay
- If there is a delay in filing complaint Court should give notice to the respondent and after
hearing the respondent Court should satisfy itself as to whether complainant had sufficient
cause for not making the complaint within the specified period - A detailed inquiry giving
opportunity to the parties to adduce oral evidence is not necessary at the stage of taking
cognizance to decide whether delay deserves to be condoned under Section 142 of the Act.
(Abdurehiman Vs Sethu Madhavan), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) : AIR 2007
NOC 136 (KER.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 : 2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727
#1: PATNA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - (As amended) - Dishonour of cheque - Notice After amendment of Act notice can be sent within one month of receipt of information of
dishonour of cheque. (Nagendra Prasad Singh & Anr. Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 698 (PATNA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 999 (PATNA)
#2: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Nominated Director - Director nominated by IDBI as financial assistance extended to company IDBI a financial institution controlled by Central Govt. - Director nominated by a Central
Government or State Government or a Financial Corporation owned or controlled by Central
Government or State Government cannot be prosecuted for dishonour of cheque - Proceedings
against petitioner quashed. (V.K.Saxena Vs State), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (DELHI) :
2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 822 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 262 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 592 :
2006(132) DLT 498
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director No averment in complaint as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the
conduct of business of Company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning - Held,
even if allegations in complaint are taken to be correct in its entirety the same do not disclose
any offence against the Director - Proceedings against Director quashed. (Saroj Kumar Poddar
Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (S.C.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 842 (S.C.) : 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 243 (S.C.) : JT 2007(2) SC 233 :
2007(2) SCALE 36 : 2007 AIR SCW 656 : 2007(4) MAH LJ 421 : 2007(3) SCC 693 : 2007(58) ACC
1090 : 2007(52) AIC 235 : AIR 2007 SC 912 : 2007 CLC 163
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint in
default - On date fixed complainant fell ill - Counsel also did not appear - Complaint dismissed in
default - A party cannot be made to suffer for negligence of his counsel - Dismissal set aside.
(Kulwant Singh Vs Balhar Singh), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 601 (P&H)
#5: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - - Dishonour of cheque - Company Company and its Directors approached complainant for grant of loan - As per loan agreement
Company issued three cheques, which were dishonoured - A2 M.D. of company and A3 to A6 its
Directors - Plea to quash complaint on the ground that there was no proper averment and notice
of offence was framed mechanically - If there are requisite averments in complaint under Ss.138
and 141 of N.I. Act then matter has to proceed for expeditious disposal and defence is to be
raised before concerned Magistrate and is not to be considered in a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C.
- No interference called for. (G.S.Saluja Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 620 (DELHI)
#6: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back
unserved as door locked for several days - It must be deemed that notice has been served Order returning complaint set aside with a direction to take the complaint on file and proceed in
accordance with law. (Pavulmanickam Vs M.S.Jeyachandran), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 622
(MADRAS)
#7: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Co-operative Society - Secretary signatory
of cheque - Signatory of cheque if ceases to be Secretary on the date when offence was
committed cannot be prosecuted u/s 138 of the Act - Crucial date for determining date when
offence was committed is when cheque is returned by the bank unpaid - A person can be
prosecuted for offence u/s 138 only if at the time the offence was committed he was in charge
of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company. (Kairali
Marketing & Processing Co-op.Society Ltd. Vs Pullengadi Service Co-op. Society Ltd.), 2007(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 624 (KERALA)
#8: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - By
imposing the sentence of imprisonment alone complainant cannot recover the money from
accused - Accused directed to pay compensation equal to that of cheque amount. (Selvaraj Vs
N.Jeyaraman), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (MADRAS) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
869 (MADRAS)
#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Accused
convicted and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5, 000/and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days - By imposing the sentence of
imprisonment alone, complainant cannot recover the money from the accused - Accused
directed to pay a compensation equal to that of cheque amount. (Selvaraj Vs N.Jeyaraman),
2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (MADRAS) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 869 (MADRAS)
#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque alleged to be
forged before filing complaint - Held, if offence is committed pertaining to document prior to its
production in Court and when it was not in custody of Court then bar u/s 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C.
does not arise and complainant is at liberty to file complaint and take action as per law.
(Ramanand Vs Kailasnath & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 509 (BOMBAY)
#11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint under section
138 of the Act - Cheque alleged to be forged before filing complaint - Accused lodged complaint
under sections 464, 468, 389, 420 r/w section 511 IPC - Bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is not
applicable - In the interest of justice both matters ordered to be heard and disposed by same
Court together and at the same time. (Ramanand Vs Kailasnath & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT
satisfied. (2005(2) Apex Court Judgments 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 483 (S.C.) :
2005(4) Criminal Court Cases 502 (S.C.) Followed). (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs
R.B.S.Channabasavardhya), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 259 (S.C.) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.C.) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S.C.) : AIR
2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC
751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR
228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 :
2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH
GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4)
CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI)
1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 :
2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190
#13: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint can be filed
through power of attorney holder - Power of Attorney holder is competent to speak of facts
within his exclusive personal knowledge. (Anirudhan Vs Philip Jacob), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 182 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 130 (KERALA) : 2006(3) KLT 554
#14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Appeal against conviction Suspension of sentence - Sentence suspended subject to deposit of 25% of compensation
amount - Held, imposition of such condition not improper. (Suresh Vs Satpuda Urban Credit Coop. Society Ltd.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 424 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
732 (BOMBAY)
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Material alteration Alteration in the year `96' - Amounts to material alteration - Accused acquitted. (Starline
Agencies Vs R.B.Agencies), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 073 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 96 (KER) : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 309 : 2006(2)
KERLJ 405
#16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Order of
imprisonment and fine - No order as to compensation - Order of sentence and fine set aside Matter remitted for decision afresh on the question of sentence and award of compensation.
(Rajendra Ramsing Ghorpade Vs Shikshan Prasarak Mandal), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 325
(BOMBAY) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 934 (BOMBAY)
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued alongwith order for supply of
goods - Goods not supplied - Cheque dishonoured - Held, no offence is committed u/s 138 of the
Act. (Supply House Vs Ullas), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 555 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 132 (KER.) : 2006 CRILJ 4330 : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 90 :
2007(1) KERLJ 63 : 2006(3) KERLT 921
#18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Firm - Partners - No
averment in complaint that partners were incharge of and were responsible to the firm for the
conduct of the business of the firm - In absence of such an averment it cannot be said that
partners are guilty of the offence - Prosecution does not lie against a partner on the simple
accusation in the complaint that such person was the partner of the firm - Proceedings against
partners quashed. (D.P.Jain & Ors. Vs Green Earth Asphalt & Power Pvt.Ltd.), 2006(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 349 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (BOMBAY) : 2006(5) MAH LJ
705
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partner - Not liable if
he merely derives profits from the company - To make a partner liable he must be in charge of
and responsible to the firm in the conduct of business of firm. (Mohandas Vs Jayasamudri
Trading Co.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 380 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER.) : 2006(47)
ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776
#20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 9-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course Purchaser of cheque is holder in due course if there is an endorsement in favour of the
purchaser. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) :
2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 ; 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC
#21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course
- Means any person who for consideration became the possessor of promissory note, bill of
exchange or cheque if payable to bearer or the payee or indorsee thereof - `A' gave loan to `B' Bank purchased cheque from `B' - `B' made an endorsement in favour of Bank - Bank becomes
holder in due course - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint against `A' maintainable. (Bhartiya
Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) :
2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 :
2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 ; 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC
#22: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back
`unclaimed' - Due service of notice is available only when an intimation as to arrival of
registered letter in post office is given to addressee and addressee fails to collect it from post
office. (Chacko Vs Kurian), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 405 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 246 (KERALA)
#23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheques issued in
advance towards future rental liability - Premises taken on rent - Premises vacated before the
expiry of lease period in breach of agreement - Held, there is no legal obligation on the part of
accused to effect clearance of cheque issued towards the rental liabilities for the period he is
not in occupation - Remedy available is to sue for damages for breach of contract.
(Uppinangady Grama Panchayat, Puttur Vs P.Narayana Prabhu), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES
422 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 316 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 1169
(KAR) : 2006 CRILJ 3141 : 2006(4) AIRKARR 243 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 750 : 2006 BANKJ 648
#24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheques - Cheques issued in
advance towards future rental liability - No existing or past liability at the time of issuance of
cheque - For prosecution u/s 138 of the Act it is necessary that cheque should have been issued
in respect of either past or current existing debt or other legal liability. (Uppinangady Grama
Panchayat, Puttur Vs P.Narayana Prabhu), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (KARNATAKA) :
2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 316 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 1169 (KAR) : 2006 CRILJ
3141 : 2006(4) AIRKARR 243 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 750 : 2006 BANKJ 648
#25: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Different cheque number - Cheque number
different than that reflected in the settlement deed entered into between the partners - Factum
of agreement of liability admitted - Number of cheque presented, number of cheque reflected in
notice and number of cheque mentioned in complaint same - Drawer of cheque cannot take any
benefit of different number being mentioned in settlement deed - Question of liability is a
matter of defence that can be raised at the appropriate stage - Court not to consider this issue
in the context of the settlement at the stage of charge or discharge of the accused. (Balraj
Kumar Vs Smt.Kuldeep Kaur), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 181 (P&H)
#1: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque -Cheque issued after
closure of account - Cheque dishonoured - Provision of S.138 is applicable. (Bal Krishnan
Sharma Vs Tek Ram), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 700 (H.P.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
960 (H.P.)
#2: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - A person who issues the
cheque which ultimately turns out to be bad is the person on whom the liability can be fastened
under the Act - If a cheque has been issued by some other person from his account then in that
eventuality nobody except the person who draws this cheque can be held liable. (Gulshan
Kumar Vs Dr.Alka Arora and Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (P&H)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Accrual Cheque presented twice - On dishonour of cheque for the first time an intimation given that
cheque is dishonoured for want of sufficient fund - Mere giving an intimation without demand of
cheque amount is not a notice within the meaning of S.138 of the Act - Held, cause of action
arose when notice of demand was issued on dishonour of cheque for the second time and
complaint filed thereafter - Held, complaint is within time. (Bank of Baroda Vs Philip Thomas),
2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 961 (P&H) : 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 448 (KERALA) : AIR
2007 NOC 50 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2838 : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 746 : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 274 :
2006(3) KERLJ 226 : 2006(3) KERLT 729
#4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Supply of goods on credit Blank cheque issued in respect of uncertain future liability - Cheque dishonoured - Offence u/s
138 cannot be inferred - Cheque issued in respect of future liabilities not in existence as on date
of cheque does not attract prosecution u/s 138 of the Act. (M/s.Shreyas Agro Services Pvt.Ltd.
Vs Chandrakumar S.B.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 014 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 1168 (KAR) : 2006 CRILJ 3140 : 2006(4)
AIRKARR 242 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 749
#5: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Required ingredients fully
proved - Single line in cross examination that first talk of business deal took place in Jan-Feb.
2000 not sufficient to disbelieve complainant's case - Evidence has to be read as a whole Evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 clearly established fact of transaction between parties prior to 2000 Presumption u/s 139 in favour of complainant - No evidence led to rebut presumption - Non
production of papers of income tax by complainant in trial not a ground to disbelieve
complainant's case - Conviction not liable to be interfered with. (Asim Kumar Saha Vs Nepal
Mahato & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (CALCUTTA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
207 (CALCUTTA)
#6: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of Magistrate to
impose sentence of fine exceeding Rs.5000/- - Accused convicted under Section 138 of N.I. Act Magistrate can only impose a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs.5000/- - In view of provisions of
S.29 Cr.P.C. imposition of penalty or fine of Rs.1, 50, 000/- by Magistrate not proper. (Asim
Kumar Saha Vs Nepal Mahato & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (CALCUTTA) : 2006(4)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 207 (CALCUTTA)
#7: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharge of accused Summons case - Complaint under S.138 of N.I. Act filed by private party - Accused raised
defence at pre trial stage - Considering the defence Magistrate ordered stoppage of proceedings
and issued show cause notice to complainant to pay compensation for filing false complaint Illegal hence quashed. (Mehta Prafulchandra Kalidas Vs Patel Cheljibhai Kalidas & Anr.), 2006(4)
CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (GUJARAT) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 433 (GUJARAT) : 2006 CRI
LJ 1660 : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 686 : 2006(4) AIRBOMR 582 (NOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 740 : 2006
ALLMR(CRI) 183 JS : 2006 BANKJ 263 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) GUJ 363 : 2006(1) GUJLH 211 :
2005(3) GUJLR 2474
#8: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharge of accused Summons case - Complaint under S.138 of N.I. Act filed by private party - It is not a case
instituted otherwise than on complaint - Provisions of S.258 not attracted. (Mehta Prafulchandra
Kalidas Vs Patel Cheljibhai Kalidas & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (GUJARAT) : 2006(4)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 433 (GUJARAT) : 2006 CRI LJ 1660 : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 686 : 2006(4)
AIRBOMR 582 (NOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 740 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 183 JS : 2006 BANKJ 263 : 2006
CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) GUJ 363 : 2006(1) GUJLH 211 : 2005(3) GUJLR 2474
#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Advocates fee - Arrears of
fees due to an Advocate is a legally enforceable debt. (Tamil Nadu Retrenched Census
Employees Association Vs Thennan), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (MADRAS) : 2006(4)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 512 (MADRAS) : AIR 2007 NOC 199 (MADRAS) : 2007(3) AKAR 412 :
2006(3) KERLT 782
#10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued for supply
of goods - Goods defective and not according to specifications hence rejected and returned - No
liability to pay under cheque. (Keygien Global Limited, Bangalore Vs Madhav Impex, Bangalore
& Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 595 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 995
(KARNATAKA)
#11: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint Accused took plea that cheque was issued without consideration and was obtained by fraud Allegations in complaint prima facie made out offence - Materials which accused seeks to rely
upon for contesting the allegations made in the complaint are yet to be proved - Without their
formal proof by evidence before the trial Court it cannot be held in these proceedings that
cheque was issued without consideration or that the same was obtained by complainant
fraudulently - Complaint cannot be quashed. (Kanta Verma Vs Surinder Gupta & Anr.), 2006(4)
CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (J&K) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 896 (J&K) : 2006 CRI LJ 1909 :
2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 681 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 374 : 2005 JKJ(SUPP) 638
#12: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant gave Rs. 2,
00, 000/- to `A' - `A' gave said amount to `B' who issued cheque of Rs.2, 00, 000/- in favour of
complainant which was dishonoured - `A' is not liable for prosecution. (Gulshan Kumar Vs
Dr.Alka Arora and Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (P&H)
#13: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Initial statement u/s
200 Cr.P.C. can be given on affidavit. (Panda Leasing & Properties Ltd. Vs Hemant Kumar
Moharana), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (ORISSA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 597
(ORISSA) : 2006(2) CRIMES 220 (ORISSA)
#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Death of complainant Son of deceased is entitled to continue the proceedings. (Tripuraneni Sri Prasad Vs State of A.P.
& Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 294 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 195 (A.P.) : AIR
2007 NOC 271 (AP) : 2007(4) AKAR 601 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 116 JS : 2006(1) ANDHLT(CRI) 469 AP
#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation expiring on a
holiday - Complaint can be filed on the next working day. (M/s Mediworld Infotech, Hyderabad
Vs M/s C.E.I. Consultancy & Ors.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 746 (A.P.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 695 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 2566 : 2006(5) ALJ(NOC) 999 : 2006(6) AKAR(NOC) 822 :
2006(5) AIRBOMR 796 NOC: 2006(2) ALD (CRI) 95 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 524 : 2006 ALLMR (CRI)
174 : 2006(2) ANDHLT(CRI) 125 AP : 2006(4) EASTCRIC 271
#16: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Defence of accused
cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance and the same can be considered
appropriately at the stage of trial. (M/s Prasanna Gases Vs State), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES
783 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 170 (RAJASTHAN)
#17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence During special leave before Supreme Court both parties filed joint petition for compromise Compromise lawful - Permission granted to compromise the dispute - Conviction set aside.
(Sayeed Ishaque Memon Vs Ansari Naseer Ahmed & Anr.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562
(S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (S.C.)
#18: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Sentence of fine of Rs.1,
25, 000/- - Power of Magistrate to impose fine Rs.5, 000/- only - Sentence of fine modified and
fine of Rs.5, 000/- imposed and in default of payment of fine petitioner to further undergo 15
days simple imprisonment. (Jitesh Kumawat Vs Ashok Kumar & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 74 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 559 (RAJASTHAN)
#19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - No
averment that applicant is partner of the firm or that he was incharge and responsible to the
firm at the time of issuance of cheque - Process against applicant quashed. (Jose Cristovam
Pinto & Anr. Vs Sahajanand Investments Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 77
(BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 276 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 1526 : AIR 2006 NOC
458 (NOC) : 2006(3) ALJ 502 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR BOM HCR 086 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 60 (SOC) :
2006(3) ALL CRI LR 421 : 2006(43) ALL IND CAS 174 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 2863 : 2006 BANKING J
562 : 2006(3) MAH LJ 369 :
#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Complaint cannot
be quashed at the threshold on the ground of non service of notice with postal endorsement of
'refusal' or 'unclaimed' or 'not found' - This matter is to be decided after recording evidence Complainant can prove that drawer of cheque knew about notice and deliberately evaded
service and got a false endorsement made only to defeat the process of law - Drawer can also
prove that postal endorsement is false. (D.Vinod Shivappa Vs Nanda Belliappa), 2006(2) APEX
COURT JUDGMENTS 01 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 101 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 057 (S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 2897 : AIR 2006 SC 2179 : 2006 AIR SCW 2757 : 2006(3)
AIR JHAR RHCR 324 : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 316 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 688 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R
21346 : 2006(4) ALL MR 145 : 2006(3) ALT(CRI.) 276 : 2006(2) BANK CLR 429 : 2006(3) BANK
CAS 465 : 2006 BANK J 577 : 2006(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 31 : 2006(3) CTC 591 : 2006 CAL CRI LR 381
: 2006(4) CIV LJ 911 : 2006(131) COM CAS 663 : 2006(73) COR LA 140 : 2006(2) CRIMES 282 :
2006(2) CUR CC 312 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 007 : 2006(130) DLT 534 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 193 :
2006(4) ICC 26 : 2006(3) JLJR 233 : 2006(5) KANT LJ 32 : 2006(3) KLT 94 : 2006(2) LW CRI 909 :
2006 MAD LJ(CRI.) 6543 : 2006(2) MAD LW(CRI.) 909 : 2006(34) OCR 588 : 2006(3) PAT LJR 282 :
2006(2) PLR 787 : 2006(2) RAJ CRI C 464 : 2006(3) RAJ LW 2528 : 2006(3) RCR(CIV) 50 : 2006(3)
RCR(CRI.) 145 : 2006(6) SCC 456 : 2006(8) SCJ 63 : 2006(70) SEBI&CL 329 : 2006(7) SRJ 25 :
2006 SC CRI R 1243 : 2006(6) SCALE 277 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 114 : 2006(4) SUPREME 540
#21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Non availability of addressee - There is
no rule of universal application that in all case where notice is not served on account of non
availability of the addresse, the court must presume service of notice - It depends upon facts of
each case - If complainant is able to prove that drawer of cheque knew about notice and
deliberately evaded service and got a false endorsement made only to defeat the process of
law, the Court shall presume service of notice - This is a matter of evidence - Drawer can also
establish by evidence that postal endorsement of 'refusal' or unclaimed' or 'not found' during
delivery time to be false - Complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold on the ground of non
service of notice. (D.Vinod Shivappa Vs Nanda Belliappa), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 01
(S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 101 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 057 (S.C.) :
2006 CRI LJ 2897 : AIR 2006 SC 2179 : 2006 AIR SCW 2757 : 2006(3) AIR JHAR RHCR 324 :
2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 316 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 688 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 21346 : 2006(4) ALL
MR 145 : 2006(3) ALT(CRI.) 276 : 2006(2) BANK CLR 429 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 465 : 2006 BANK J
577 : 2006(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 31 : 2006(3) CTC 591 : 2006 CAL CRI LR 381 : 2006(4) CIV LJ 911 :
2006(131) COM CAS 663 : 2006(73) COR LA 140 : 2006(2) CRIMES 282 : 2006(2) CUR CC 312 :
2006(3) CUR CRI R 007 : 2006(130) DLT 534 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 193 : 2006(4) ICC 26 :
2006(3) JLJR 233 : 2006(5) KANT LJ 32 : 2006(3) KLT 94 : 2006(2) LW CRI 909 : 2006 MAD
LJ(CRI.) 6543 : 2006(2) MAD LW(CRI.) 909 : 2006(34) OCR 588 : 2006(3) PAT LJR 282 : 2006(2)
PLR 787 : 2006(2) RAJ CRI C 464 : 2006(3) RAJ LW 2528 : 2006(3) RCR(CIV) 50 : 2006(3)
RCR(CRI.) 145 : 2006(6) SCC 456 : 2006(8) SCJ 63 : 2006(70) SEBI&CL 329 : 2006(7) SRJ 25 :
2006 SC CRI R 1243 : 2006(6) SCALE 277 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 114 : 2006(4) SUPREME 540
#22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Complaint filed by Managing Director
- A responsible officer or office bearer of Company can file complaint u/s 138 of the Act Question whether such officer had been specifically authorised to file the complaint on behalf of
the Company does not arise at all. (Sarathi Leasing Finance Limited, Mangalore Vs B.Narayana
Shetty), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 653
(KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 976 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 875 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 445 :
2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 852 : 2006(3) ALCRILR 545 : 2006 BANKJ 650 : 2006(131) COMCAS 798 :
2006(73) CORLA 165 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 139 : 2006(4) ICC 284 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 1929 :
2006(3) KANTLJ 397
#23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against L.R's of
the person who issued the cheque - Not maintainable - Proceedings and process issued against
L.R's quashed - Compensation of Rs.5, 000/- awarded for launching proceeding which was
absolutely untenable in law. (Savita & Ors. Vs Rajesh Damodar Sarode & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 751 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ
2229 : AIR 2006 BON 781 (NOC) : 2006(4) ALJ 700 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR 553 (NOC) :
2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 271 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 88 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 1307 : 2006(4) BANK
CAS 490 : 2006(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 872 : 2006(4) CUR CC 212 : 2006(4) CUR CRI R 296 : 2006(4)
ICC 381 : 2006(3) MAH LJ 845
#24: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured - 'Account
freezed' on account of winding up proceedings - Company having issued cheque for subsisting
liability is bound to see that cheques are honoured at any cost - Freezing of account is not on
account of act of complainant but it is on account of act of accused - Accused has to answer the
claim of the complainant even in case the accounts are freezed on account of winding up
proceedings initiated against the accused. (Counter Point Advt. P.Ltd. rep by its Director,
Mr.Naresh Purushotham Vs Harita Finance Limited), 2006(3) CIVILL COURT CASES 286 (MADRAS)
#25: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence by company
- Quashing of complaint - Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that petitioner ceased to
be Director of company with effect from 18.5.2003 - Cheque bounced on 25.6.2003 Complainant seriously disputed the genuineness of resolution passed by Board of Directors Disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in summary proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. (Atul
Kohli & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 676 (P&H) : 2006(4)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452 (P&H)
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Received back
with postal endorsement 'Not claimed' - It means that accused was in the knowledge that a
notice is sent and he intentionally avoided to receive the same - Presumption is that notice was
served. (M/s.C & C Enterprises, Hyderabad Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
658 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 924 (A.P.) : AIR 2007 NOC 119 (A.P.) : 2006(6) ALJ
697 : 2006(2) ANDHLT(CRI) 316 AP
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable deft Money lending business alleged - If a person is advancing money casually and not professional
money-lender, there is no necessity for obtaining any licence and in that event the debt is
legally enforceable. (S.V.Rao Vs M/s.Credential Finance Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director &
Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 330 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 280 (A.P.) : 2006
CRI LJ 1999 : 2006(4) ALJ 677 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALD (CRI.) 665 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 788 : 2006
ALL MR(CRI.) 177 (JS) : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) 476 : 2006(4) ICC 192 : 2006(2) RCR(CRI.) 917
#3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against
partners - Complaint not disclosing that at the time the offence was committed petitioner was in
any way incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm - Complaint
quashed against petitioner. (Suman Madanlal Bora Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2006(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 356 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI
LJ 324 (NOC) : AIR 2006 BOM 921 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 539 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR HCR 648
(NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 434 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 707 : 2006(1) BOM CRI R 243 : 2006(4)
MAH LJ 369
#4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Can be filed
by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder cannot depose on behalf of complainant However, he can appear as a witness on behalf of complainant. (M/s G.J.Packaging Private Ltd.
& Anr. Vs M/s S.S.Sales & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 366 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 257 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 214 : 2006(1) ALJ (NOC) 177 : 2006(2) AKAR (NOC)
209 : 2006(1) AIRJHAR(NOC) 107 : 2006(2) ALLCRILR 353 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 2782 : 2006 BANK J
244 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 169 : 2006(2) CRIMES 270
#5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Can be filed
by power of attorney holder of payee - When a power of attorney holder has full knowledge of
the transaction his statement can be recorded by Magistrate for verification of the complaint.
(M/s G.J.Packaging Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs M/s S.S.Sales & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 366
(BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 257 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 214 : 2006(1) ALJ
(NOC) 177 : 2006(2) AKAR (NOC) 209 : 2006(1) AIRJHAR(NOC) 107 : 2006(2) ALLCRILR 353 :
2005 ALLMR(CRI) 2782 : 2006 BANK J 244 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 169 : 2006(2) CRIMES 270
#6: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Issuance of cheque after closure of account Cheque dishonoured - Provision of S.138 is applicable to a cheque drawn on a closed account.
(Bal Krishnan Sharma Vs Tek Ram), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 396 (H.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 452 (H.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1993 : 2006(4) ALJ 678 (NOC) : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 84
(SOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 378 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 491 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 201 (JS) : 2006
BANK JS 901 : 2006(4) CIV LJ 886 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 311 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 406 : 2006(1)
SHIM LC 385
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation Day on which cause of action accrues has to be excluded for reckoning period of limitation for
filing complaint. (Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. & Anr. Vs Ashoka Alloy Steel Ltd. & Ors.), 2006(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 421 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 495 (S.C.) : 2006(9) SCC 340 :
2006(4) RCR(CRL.) 58 : 2006(4) RCR(C) 152
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque if issued for
security or for any other purpose the same does not come within the purview of S.138 of the
Act. (M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS
411 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665
(S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6)
AIR KANT HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 :
2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR
22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 :
2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 :
2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 1266 : 2006(2)
MAD LW (CRI.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4)
RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275
: 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6)
SCC 39
#9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Business dealing - Cheque
alleged to be towards outstanding dues - Account books not produced by complainant Contention of accused that cheque was issued as security believed - Conviction set aside.
(M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 411
(S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S.C.) :
2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT
HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2)
ALL CRI R 2170 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 :
2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 :
2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 :
2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 1266 : 2006(2)
MAD LW (CRI.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4)
RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275
: 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6)
SCC 39
#10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation Suspension during pendency of appeal - Appellate Court can pass appropriate interim orders of
suspension with any conditions or terms as may warrant in circumstances in respect of
compensation awarded under sub-section (3) of S.357 Cr.P.C. (S.Haneef Vs M.Shafath Ali Khan &
Anr.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (A.P.) (DB) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.P.)
(DB)
#11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Compensation - Granted under sub-section (3) of
S.357 Cr.P.C. is to be recovered only as if it were a fine. (S.Haneef Vs M.Shafath Ali Khan & Anr.),
2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (A.P.) (DB) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.P.) (DB)
#12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt Money financing business - Complainant doing finance business and having a Pvt. Ltd. Co. - But
in the instant case loan given in his individual capacity - It was not elicited from complainant
that he is financing to may others including the accused in his individual capacity - It is not
correct to hold that complainant is doing money lending business in his individual capacity and
requires a money lending licence - Held, debt is legally enforceable debt. (S.V.Rao Vs
M/s.Credential Finance Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
330 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 280 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1999 : 2006(4) ALJ 677
(NOC) : 2006(1) ALD (CRI.) 665 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 788 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 177 (JS) : 2006(1)
ALT(CRI.) 476 : 2006(4) ICC 192 : 2006(2) RCR(CRI.) 917
#13: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint can be filed by
power of attorney holder - Sworn statement of power of attorney can be recorded at the very
inception - Only during the course of trial, the payee will have to come to the box and speak
from his knowledge about the legal liability of the drawer, issuance of cheque, presentation of
the cheque for payment, dishonour of the cheque, issuance of statutory notice etc.
(T.Muthukaruppan Vs G.Raghavan), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1061 (MADRAS) : 2006(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 653 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 1078 : 2006(3) ALJ 510 (NOC) : 2006 AKAR 344
(NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR HCR 443 (NOC): 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 424 (NOC): 2006(55) ALL CRI C
24 (SOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 767 : 2006(41) ALL IND CAS 407 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 273 (JS) :
2006(3) BANK CAS 423 : 2006(1) CTC 635 : 2006(2) CRIMES 239 : 2006(2) CUR CRI R 277 :
2006(3) ICC 195 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 241
#14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Can be
enforced by imposing a sentence in default. (Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale Vs Capt.Atul Wasudeo
Divekar & Anr.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1078 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
752 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 606 : 2006(2) ALJ 266 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR 210 (NOC) :
2006(1) AIR BOM HCR 361 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 4 (SOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 515 : 2006(41)
ALL IND CAS 166 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 544 : 2006(4) BANK CAS 424 : 2006 BANK J 557 : 2006(2)
BOM CR (CRI.) 159 : 2006(2) CRIMES 248 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 66 : 2006(2) ICC 693 : 2006(1)
MAH LJ 700
#15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - A witness whose name
does not appear in the list of witnesses (in the instant case list of witnesses not filed) can be
examined as a witness in view of S.254(1) of the Code - S.204(2) does not override S.254(1) of
the Code. (Sunil Vassudev Pednekar Vs Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.), 2006(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 659 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 961 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3)
RCR(CRI.) 713 : 2006 CRI LJ 3114 : 2006(6) AKAR 818 (NOC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 96 : 2006
ALL MR(CRI.) 1560 : 2006(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 429 : 2006(4) CRIMES 434
#16: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director of
company whether incharge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the company is a
question which has to be answered at the trial and complaint cannot be quashed on this ground.
(Pankaj Narang Vs State & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (DELHI) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 971 (DELHI) : 127 (2006) DLT 670 : AIR 2007 NOC 45 (DELHI) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE)
698 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 341 : 2006(127) DLT 670 : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 698
#17: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Accused in
turn filed criminal complaint for committing forgery by filing a higher amount in the cheque Held, separate complaint not maintainable - Complaint can be filed by the Court where forged
cheque is presented. (M.Ravi & Ors. Vs Elumalai Chettiar), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 703
(MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 362 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 1059 : 2006(3) ALJ
511 (NOC) : 2006 AKAR 347 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 426 (NOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 765 :
2006(3) ICC 171
#18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Affidavit
in support thereof - Cognizance can be taken relying on affidavit as provision of S.145 of the Act
permits filing of affidavit. (Gulam Haidar Ali Khan Vs Managing Partner, Shirdi Sai Finance
Corporation, S.Kota), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 717 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
903 (A.P.) : 2006(2) DCR 701 : 2006(6) ALJ 700
#19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Time barred debt - Cheque issued for discharge
of time barred debt - Prior to issuance of cheque accused executed an affidavit/undertaking
admitting the loan amount and confirming the outstanding balance - Debt becomes legally
enforceable debt - Cheque given in payment of such debt if dishonoured then accused is liable
to be punished u/s 138 of the Act. (Contract Act, 1872, S.25(3). (Narendra V.Kanekar Vs The
Bardez-Taluka Co-op. Housing Mortgage Society Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 730
(BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 946 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 56 : 2006
CRI LJ 3111 : AIR 2006 BOM 1096 (NOC) : 2006(6) AKAR 824 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR JHAR HCR 729
(NOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 673 : 2006(3) ALL MR 673 : 2006(6) BOM CR 874 : 2006(7) MAH LJ
11
#20: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Conviction u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Appeal - Suspension of sentence - If the very order appealed against is suspended, the sentence
flowing therefrom automatically gets suspended - Separate order for suspension of sentence is
not required in case order appealed against is suspended. (V.Chandrasekaran Vs R.Nagarajan),
2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 741 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 913 (MADRAS) :
2006 CRI LJ 2055 : 2006(4) ALJ 860 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 491 (NOPC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR
696 (NOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 571 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 408 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 353
#21: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Conviction u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act Appeal - Show cause notice as to removal from service on account of judgment of conviction - If
judgment of conviction is not suspended accused has to forego his employment even while
appeal preferred by him against the judgment of conviction is pending. (V.Chandrasekaran Vs
R.Nagarajan), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 741 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
913 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 2055 : 2006(4) ALJ 860 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 491 (NOPC) : 2006(4)
AIR BOM HCR 696 (NOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 571 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 408 : 2006 MAD LJ
(CRI.) 353
#22: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - During pendency of
proceedings parties compromised - Payment to be made in instalments - Complaint quashed in
view of compromise - In case payment not made as agreed and as per schedule then
complainant to get revive the complaint. (M/s.Sigma Diagnostics Ltd. & Ors. Vs Gurjeet Singh
Kohli), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 744 (P&H) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 937 (P&H)
#23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of
cheque amount through paper publication - Provision of S.138 of the Act not complied with Complaint quashed. (Salvaji Prabhakar Rao Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
745 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 953 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 369 (NOC) : 2006(6) ALJ 702
(NOC) : 2006(1) ALD (CRI.) 989 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 326 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 236 (JS) : 2006(2)
ALT(CRI.) 282 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 721
#24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Appeal - Suspension of
sentence during pendency of appeal - Condition of depositing compensation amount can be
imposed - When amount of compensation is heavy Court can direct deposit of a reasonable
amount - In exceptional cases it can be granted without requiring deposit of compensation
amount - In the instant case condition imposed to deposit 50% of cheque amount for
suspending order directing payment of compensation - Proper. (Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale Vs
Capt.Atul Wasudeo Divekar & Anr.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1078 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 752 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 606 : 2006(2) ALJ 266 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR
210 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR BOM HCR 361 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 4 (SOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 515 :
2006(41) ALL IND CAS 166 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 544 : 2006(4) BANK CAS 424 : 2006 BANK J
557 : 2006(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 159 : 2006(2) CRIMES 248 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 66 : 2006(2) ICC
693 : 2006(1) MAH LJ 700
#25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Director - Not
signatory of cheque - No specific averment in complaint that he is in-charge of the day-to-day
affairs of the Company - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (P.Sivanandam Vs Sri Srinivasa
Marketing Co. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 612 (A.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
041 (A.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 226 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 490 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALD(CRI.) 526 : 2006(4)
ALL CRI LR 179 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI) 113 (JS) : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) 645 : 2006(4) ICC 414
#1: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Wrong implication of a
person as accused - Complainant on its own or trial Court can give opportunity to drop any or all
of the accused persons - In case complainant insists to continue proceedings against all or any
of the accused persons then Magistrate while deciding the matter finally may pass observations
or strictures for wrong implication of all or any of the accused and may also initiate proceedings
u/ss 211 or 340 Cr.P.C. (Daljeet Singh Chandok Vs State & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
199 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 308 (DELHI) : 2006(1) REC CRI R 958 : 2006(1)
AD (DELHI) 457
#2: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Non appearance of
complainant - Dismissal in default and acquittal of accused - No mention in order that accused
was present on that day - If complainant is absent on a particular day and his presence on that
day is quite unnecessary then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint is not a proper
exercise of the power envisaged in the provision of S.256 Cr.P.C. - Order of acquittal set aside
and complaint restored. (M/s.Jindal Pipes Ltd. Vs M/s.Beard Sell Satec Ltd.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 783 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 383 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 3170 :
2006(5) AIR BOM HCR 861 (NOC) : 2006(6) ALL MR 31 (JS) : 2006(2) CRIMES 320 : 2006 MAD LJ
(CRI.) 534 : 2006(4) RCR(CRI.) 678
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cheque also
subject matter of arbitration proceedings - Not a ground for stay of complaint u/s 138 of the Act.
(Guracharan Singh & Anr. Vs M/s Allied Motors Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS
413 (S.C.) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (S.C.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 72 (S.C.) :
2006 CRIL LJ 360 : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 276 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) 5487 : 2006(2) BANK CAS 575 :
2006(2) ICC 641 : 2006(2) RCR(CRI.) 29 : 2005(10) SCC 626 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1653
#4: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint u/s 138 - Dismissal in default at the
stage of arguments - Order dismissing the complaint in default not justified and the said order
can be corrected in exercise of revisional jurisdiction - Complaint restored. (Monika Jindal & Ors.
Vs Pardeep Khanna & Ors.), 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 958 (P&H) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 10 (P&H)
#5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Amendment Correction of cheque number - Confusion in number of cheque occurred due to rubber stamp
overlapping on the cheque number - If correction of cheque number is permitted it will not ipso
facto prejudice the defence of accused - Amendment allowed. (Balasaheb Vs Abdulla), 2006(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 365 (BOMBAY)
#6: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Mandate holder' is a person obeying the
mandate of another and issuing cheque - Cheque issued by mandate holder when bounces it is
the account holder who is liable. (Ravi Chandran Vs Subramanian), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
78 (MADRAS) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 263 (MADRAS) : AIR 2007 NOC 53 (MADRAS) :
2006(2) ALJ (EE) 291 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 759 : 2006(1) KERLT 611
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dropping of proceedings Drafts in lieu of cheques issued - Such defence can only be considered at the time of trial Proceedings on such count cannot be dropped. (State Farm Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs M/s Nijjer
Agro Foods Ltd. & Ors.), 2006(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 455 (S.C.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 826 (S.C.) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 679 : 2005 AIRSCW
6301 : 2006(1) AIRKARR 505 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 2530 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 415 : 2006(131)
COMCAS 147 : 2006 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) SC 174 : 2006 CRILR(SC&MP) SC 174 : ILR(KANT) 2006
SC 579 : 2006(33) OCR 616.1 : 2006(1) ORISSALR 121 : 2006(2) RAJLW 1512 : 2005(5) SLT 609 :
2006 SCC (CRI) 609 : 2006 SCC(CRI) 609
ground. (Dinesh Harakchand Sankla Vs M/s Kurlon Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572
(KARNATAKA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 615 (KARNATAKA)
#4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Territorial jurisdiction
- Complaint filed in a Court within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court and Writ petition
thereagainst filed in High Court of Kerala - For an offence u/s 138 of the Act complainant is
required to prove the facts constituting the cause of action therefor - Agreement entered into
within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court - Project for which the supply of stone chips and
transportation was to be carried out was also within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court Payments were obviously required to be made within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court
where either the contract had been entered into or where payment was to be made - Held,
Kerala High Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as no part of cause of action arose within its
jurisdiction. (Musaraf Hossain Khan Vs Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 107 (S.C.) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S.C.) : 2006(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 194 (S.C.) : 2006 CRILJ 1683 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 1288 : 2006 AIR SCW 1137 :
2006(2) ALLCJ 1001 : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 163 : 2006(4) ALLINDCAS 265 : 2006(2) ALLMR 140 :
2006(2) ALLWC 1749 : 2006(1) ANDHLD 653 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 632 : 2006(2) BANKCAS 515 :
2006 BANKJ 1 : 2006(3) BOMCR 98 : 2006(2) CTC 57 : 2006(130) COMCS 390 : 2006(4) COMLJ
419 SC : 2006(72) COR LA 55 : 2006 CRLLR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 484 : 2006 CRLLR (SC&MP) SC 484
: 2006(2) CURCC 71 : 2006(1) CUR CRIR 178 : 2006(2) EAST CRIC 162 : 2006(2) ICC 708 : ILR
(KANT
#5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine and compensation Recovery of compensation gets precedence over recovery of fine - If amount recovered is
insufficient to meet both, amount recovered must first be applied in payment of compensation
and action be taken to recover balance amount - Recovery of compensation by attachment and
sale of property of accused does not cease merely because the accused has undergone the
whole of the imprisonment in default of payment of fine. (Y.Vishnu Vs S.Venkatesh), 2006(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 673 (KARNATAKA) : 2006 CRI LJ 1853 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 565 : 2006(2)
AIRKARR 697 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 526 NOC : 2006(55) ALLCRIC 37 SOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 181 :
2006(41) ALLINDCAS 942 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 108 JS : 2006(4) BANKCAS 575 : 2006 BANKJ 528 :
2006(134) COMCAS 314 : 2006(2) CURCRIR 573 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 1377 : 2006(2) KANTLJ
389 : 2006(3) RECCRIR 94
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Registered society - Cheque issued by
Secretary for and on behalf of society - Cheque dishonoured - Secretary is liable u/s 138 of the
Act even if he ceases to be its Secretary. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing
Federation Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289
#7: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 151-- - Registered society - Dishonour of cheque Offence committed by a registered society - Every person who at the time when the offence was
committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the society for the conduct of the business
of the society as well as the society shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be
liable to be proceeded against and punished. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing
Federation Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289
#8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque given as
collateral security - Cheque was never meant to be deposited - If such a cheque is deposited
and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability. (Goa Handicrafts, Rural & Small Scale
Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s.Samudra Ropes Pvt. Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 726 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1009 (BOMBAY)
#9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Dishonour of cheque - Letter a
communication only or a notice - Make the payment or face legal action - Held, letter qualifies
itself as a notice. (Krishna Exports Vs Raju Das), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 740 (S.C.) :
2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1076 (S.C.) : 2004(13) SCC 498
#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque dishonoured for
the reason that it had no account number and it was without 'proprietary stamp' - No offence is
made out - Offence u/s 138 is made out only when cheque is returned due to insufficient funds
and amount exceeds the arrangement. (Abdul Rehman M.Mulgand Vs Mohammad Hashan
Mulgand & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 749 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
1092 (BOMBAY)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - It
is an interim order - It can be varied or recalled if accused is able to show that no offence is
made out from the complaint. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.)
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Concurrent running of sentence - Discretion can
be exercised by trial Court, appellate court as well as the revisional court - High Court can
exercise the power available u/s 427 Cr.P.C. by invoking jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Abdul Gafoor
Vs Abdulla & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
501 (KERALA)
#16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post and UCP
(Under Certificate of posting) - Notice sent as per registered post returned unserved - UCP did
not return - Pleading in complaint viz. 'Hence, it is presumed that U.C.P. has been received by
the accused' - Held, it is sufficient to hold that complainant has pleaded as to service of notice
on the accused - Averment 'has been received by the accused' shall be construed as 'service of
notice'. (P.K.Radha Krishnan Vs Vijayan Nambiar), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 467 (KARNATAKA)
: 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 572 (KARNATAKA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4184 : 2006(1) ALJ 76 (NOC) :
2005 AIR KANT HCR 2440 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 622 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 613 : 2006(1) BANK
CLR 263 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 535 : 2006 BANK J 284 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 560 : 2005(4) CUR CRI R
489 : 2005(4) ICC 782(2) : 2005 ILR(KANT.) 4486 : 2005(4) KCCR 2761 : 2005(5) KANT LJ 473
#17: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque issued by
Company - Prosecution of Company, Chairman, Vice Chairman and other Directors of the
company - For prosecution of Chairman, Vice Chairman and other Directors of the Company
complaint must show how they are responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business of the
company and how they were actually involved in the conduct of the business of the company
relating to the transaction in question or how and on what basis it can be said that it was with
the active connivance of these accused that the offence was committed by the company - Omnibus allegation that Chairman and Directors of the company were responsible for the
conduct of the business of the company and all of them connived in the offence is not sufficient
for their prosecution. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522
(DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 531 (DELHI) : 2005(124) DLT 353
#18: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Legally enforceable debt or other liability Cheque issued for a consideration which is unlawful - No offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out.
(J.Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 530 (KERALA) : 2006(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (KERALA) : 2006(1) LRC 408 (KER.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4095 : 2006(1) ALJ
77 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) ABR 83
(NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 390 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 273 : 2006(1) ICC 669 : 2005(3) KLJ 29 :
2005(4) RCR(CIV) 641
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Legally enforceable debt or other liability Cheque issued for compounding a non compoundable offence - Liability arising is not a legally
enforceable debt or other liability - An agreement opposed to law or forbidden by law is not
enforceable - Held, any debt or liability arising out of a contract or promise, which is unlawful or
not legally enforceable, would not constitute an offence u/s 138 of the Act. (J.Daniel Vs State of
Kerala & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 530 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
648 (KERALA) : 2006(1) LRC 408 (KER.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4095 : 2006(1) ALJ 77 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR
KANT HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) ABR 83 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI
LR 390 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 273 : 2006(1) ICC 669 : 2005(3) KLJ 29 : 2005(4) RCR(CIV) 641
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Identity of
signatory of a cheque is not a question to be considered by trial Court. (Mathew George Vs
Jacob), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1049
(KERALA)
#21: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Issued twice - Earlier notice not under
S.138 of the Act - Complaint based on subsequent presentation of cheque and subsequent
notice of demand cannot be said to be invalid. (M/s Laltech Engineering Projects Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.
Vs M/s.Gypsum Structural India Pvt.Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (DELHI) : 2006(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 444 (DELHI) : 2005 CRI LJ 3406 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 689 : 2006(1) CIVLJ
890
#22: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Must be
signed by the complainant - Non signing of complaint by complainant is a curable defect and
complainant can later on sign the complaint. (S.Samsen Papli Vs Sridevi), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 598 (MADRAS) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 956 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 1991 :
2006(2) ALJ(NOC) 230 : 2006(54) ALLCRIC 54 SOC : 2006(2) ALLCRILR 139 : 2006(38)
ALLINDCAS 578 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 223 JS : 2006(3) B ANKCLR 514 : 2006(4) BANKCAS 590 :
2006 BANKJ 60 : 2005(5) CTC 765 : 2006(1) CRIMES 568 : 2006(2) ICC 441 : 2006 MADLJ (CRI)
118 : 2006(1) RECCRIR 514
#23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - If certain crimes are committed
by its officials, the company is liable for prosecution - When company is convicted, the liability
can be only in terms of fine as the company is responsible for the acts of commissions and
omissions of the persons working for it. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.)
#24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Liable for prosecution despite
non prosecution of the Director or Directors responsible for the management of the affairs of the
company or incharge of its affairs. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.)
#25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque theory - Goods supplied to accused
- All the transactions shown in the account books maintained by complainant - It is thus
established that cheques were issued towards legally enforceable debt - Contention that blank
cheques were issued in good faith not tenable. (Polisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu & Ors. Vs Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (A.P.) : 2005 CRI LJ
4297 : 2006(1) ALJ 72 : 2006(1) AIR KANR HCR (NOC) 009 : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 244 (NOC) :
2005(2) ALD(CRI.) 537 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 579 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI.) 378 : 2006(1) ICC 776
#1: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Notice
contemplated to be given is one that is given after the dishonour of the cheque and not before
that. (Surana Traders, rep. by its Partner & Anr. Vs T.T.K. Taxtex Limited.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 58 (MADRAS) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 532 (MADRAS)
#2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post at correct
address - Received back with postal endorsement `Receiver could not be found despite several
visits' - Accused cannot be discharged on the ground that there is no valid notice as
contemplated by provision of S.138(b) of the Act as it is only at the trial that complainant can
prove that accused managed to get an incorrect postal endorsement. (Abhinav Chaturvedi Vs
M/s Mangalik Chemicals), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 653 (ALLAHABAD) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 926 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005 CRI LJ 4561 : 2005 ALL LJ 3284 : 2006(2) AIR KAR HCR
224 (NOC) : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 418 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 718 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 3374 :
2006(1) BAN CAS 112
#3: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque drawn in favour of
`Self' - Cheque not endorsed in favour of complainant - Held, complainant is neither a payee nor
a holder in due course - Dishonour of self drawn cheque does not amount to penal offence u/s
138 of the Act. (Dr.Jiten Barkakoti Vs Subrata Patangia & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654
(GAUHATI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 744 (GAUHATI) : 2005 CRI LJ 3598 : 2005(4) ALL
CRI LR 729 : 2006(37) ALL IND CAS 636 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 859 : 2006(1) EAST CRI C 158 : 2005(2)
GAU LT 558 : 2006(1) KLT 674
#4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Starts to run
from the day immediately following the day on which the period of 15 days from the date of
receipt of notice expires - In the instant case notice received on 6.5.2000 and complaint filed on
21.6.2000 - Held, complaint is within time. (Valishetty Manohar (Complainant) Vs Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 662 (A.P.) :
2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 867 (A.P.)
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant failed to take steps u/ss 82 & 83
Cr.P.C. - Accused cannot be acquitted - However, complaint can be dismissed u/s 204 Cr.P.C.
(V.Suresh Kumar Vs V.C.Raveendran & Anr.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KERALA) :
2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1017 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4756 : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 222
(NOC) : 2006(10 ABR 193 (NOC) : 2006(10 ALL CRI LR 741 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.) 467 : 2005(4)
KHCACJ 262 : 2006(1) KLJ 206 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI.) 556
and can be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding - Court on application of
prosecution or accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the
facts contained therein. (Mahendra Kumar Vs Armstrong & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 75
(M.P.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (M.P.)
#1: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Refusal' - It is sufficient service of notice
- 15 days time to make payment starts from the date of endorsement of `Refusal' - If payment is
not made within 15 days of endorsement of `Refusal' there remains one month's time for the
payee to file the complaint. (Kushal Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 392 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 843 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005 CRI LJ
3035 : 2005 ALL LJ 1824 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 200 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 64 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R
1361 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 464 : 2005 BANK J 758 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 832 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 371
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Amount paid for securing a job - Failure to secure
job - Cheque issued towards the amount obtained - Held, amount covered by cheque is legally
enforceable and not opposed to public policy unlike a bribe paid. (Francis Mathew Vs State of
Kerala), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 226 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 61
(KERALA)
#3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Power of attorney holder - Can file
complaint on account of dishonour of cheque in the name of the principal. (Mamatadevi
Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.)
0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.) 3075
#4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - All transactions in relation to dishonour of cheque
undertaken by power of attorney holder in total exclusion of the payee or holder in due course In such an eventuality, power of Attorney holder, in addition to his capacity to file complaint,
alone has to be the witness in place of the complainant apart from other witnesses if involved in
the transaction. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal &
Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562
(BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.) 3075
#5: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Goods
supplied at Delhi - Post dated cheque issued at Delhi - Complainant company located in Gujarat
but having bank account at Delhi also - Cheque presented at Delhi and dishonoured - Notice
issued by complainant company and received by accused at Delhi - Complaint filed in Gujarat
state - Held, complaint is maintainable. (Sita Ram Singhania & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.),
2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282 (GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) :
2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117
#6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Sick company - Winding up petition
pending - Held, when complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act was filed, no decision was taken by Board for
winding up the company - Pendency of proceedings for winding up does not affect prosecution.
(Sita Ram Singhania & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282
(GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117
#7: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Business
transaction taking place at a number of places - Complainant can file complaint in any of the
Courts where transactions took place - Choice is of the complainant. (Sita Ram Singhania & Anr.
Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282 (GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117
#8: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Components of the offence of dishonour of
cheque, punishable u/s 138 of N.I. Act are: (1) Drawing of the cheque; (2) Presentation of the
cheque to the Bank; (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawer bank; (4) Giving notice in
writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount; and (5) Failure
of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice. (Sita Ram Singhania &
Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282 (GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 43-- - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque
issued for withdrawal of civil case - Civil case not withdrawn - Held, when cheque is issued for
some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet another promise i.e. withdrawal of civil
case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then cheque is without
valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the
drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque.
(Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1)
BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST
CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.) 2005(3) KER. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 562
#10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Parties
compromised during pendency of complaint - Another cheque given - That cheque also
dishonoured - Second complaint filed - Both the complaints ordered to be clubbed and entrusted
to one Court. (Anoop Bhakoo Vs Subhash Chander Gupta), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 356
(P&H) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (P&H)
#11: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Appeal against conviction Reduction in sentence - Accused faced agony for 12 years - Accused an old lady - Accused
already deposited amount of fine - Accused already undergone 10 days of imprisonment Sentence reduced from six months to already undergone. (Dayawanti Vs Shubh Lata), 2005(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (P&H) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 826 (P&H) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA
CRI LR 176
#12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Refusal' - There is presumption that
such endorsement was correctly made unless proved otherwise. (Kushal Pal Singh Vs State of
U.P. & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
843 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005 CRI LJ 3035 : 2005 ALL LJ 1824 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 200 : 2005(4) ALL
CRI LR 64 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R 1361 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 464 : 2005 BANK J 758 : 2005(4) CIV LJ
832 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 371
#13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued as a collateral security Dishonour of cheque - Even collateral security becomes a debt or liability on the part of accused
to perform his contract - The very issuance of cheque presumes that it was issued for discharge
of liability. (M/s.Menon Ventures, Bangalore Vs M/s.Birla 3M Ltd.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
616 (KARNATAKA)
#14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Liability depends not upon
holding an office in a company but satisfying the main requirement that he was incharge and
responsible for conduct of business of company at the relevant time - A Director not incharge
and responsible for conduct of business of the Company is not liable for the offence whereas a
person not holding any office but incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the
company at the relevant time is liable for the offence, punishable u/s 138 of the Act.
(S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544
(S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) :
2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005
AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 :
2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI)
SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 :
2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 :
2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 :
2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4)
EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 :
2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 :
2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC
89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7)
SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 :
2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229
#15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance Magistrate if proceeds to examine the complainant and such other evidence as the complainant
may produce then it should be held to have taken cognizance of the offence and proceeded with
the inquiry. (CREF Finance Ltd. Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 449 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 01 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005 AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT
HCR 17 : 2006(1) ALD(CRI.) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL
CRI R 2797 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 719 :
2005(4) CTC 684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 : 2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005
CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES 256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT
638 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT.) 2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 :
2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 : 2006(1) KANT. LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4)
MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4) PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 26 : 2005(7) SCC
467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 : 2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76
#16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Company - Managing Director issued
cheque on behalf of Company - Issuance of process against Managing Director challenged on
the ground that liability not being the personal liability of Managing Director, he could not be
prosecuted and that process is erroneously issued against him - Held, cognizance against
Managing Director is taken properly after considering the material placed before Magistrate.
(CREF Finance Ltd. Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS
449 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) :
AIR 2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005 AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 17 : 2006(1)
ALD(CRI.) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 2797 :
2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 719 : 2005(4) CTC
684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 : 2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005 CRI
LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES 256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT 638 :
2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT.) 2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 :
2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 : 2006(1) KANT. LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4)
MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4) PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 26 : 2005(7) SCC
467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 : 2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76
#17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance Cognizance of complaint is taken when Magistrate orders recording statement of complainant
and any evidence which the complainant may produce - It is not necessary that the words
'Cognizance taken' should appear in the order. (CREF Finance Ltd. Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt.
Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 449 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542
(S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005
AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 17 : 2006(1) ALD(CRI.) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 :
2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 2797 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1)
ALT(CRI.) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 719 : 2005(4) CTC 684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 :
2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES
256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT 638 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT.)
2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 : 2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 :
2006(1) KANT. LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4) MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4)
PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 26 : 2005(7) SCC 467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 :
2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76
#18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance Once the Court on perusal of the complaint is satisfied that the complaint discloses the
commission of an offence and there is no reason to reject the complaint at that stage, and
proceeds further in the matter, it must be held to have taken cognizance of the offence. (CREF
Finance Ltd. Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 449
(S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : AIR
2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005 AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 17 : 2006(1)
ALD(CRI.) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 2797 :
2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 719 : 2005(4) CTC
684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 : 2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005 CRI
LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES 256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT 638 :
2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT.) 2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 :
2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 : 2006(1) KANT. LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4)
MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4) PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 26 : 2005(7) SCC
467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 : 2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76
#19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Post dated cheque - Bank
informed that there is no amount in the account of drawer - Drawee filing FIR with police and
offence u/s 420 IPC registered - Held, merely because the ingredients of an offence u/s 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted, it does not prevent the complainant from lodging FIR
with the police for an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC - Bar u/s 142(a) is applicable only for the
offence u/s 138 NI Act and not for an offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC. (N.P.Nagaraj
Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 594 (KARNATAKA) : 2005(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA)
#20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Post dated cheque - No
amount in account when cheque presented - FIR u/s 420 IPC lodged - Held, there is no bar to
prosecute a person for an offence of cheating - Proceedings cannot be quashed. (N.P.Nagaraj Vs
State of Karnataka & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 594 (KARNATAKA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA)
referred to police for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. (S.Jayaswami & Anr. Vs State of Orissa &
Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (ORISSA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 369
(ORISSA) : 2005 CRI LJ 2896 : 2006 ALL LJ 129 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 394 : 2005(29) ALL IND CAS
386 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 469 : 2005 BANK J 956 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 845 : 2005(99) CUT LT 424 :
2005(4) ICC 708 : 2005(3) OCR 714 : 2005(1) ORISSA LR 284 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 704
#8: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Police is not empowered to
investigate into a complaint involving an offence under Section 138 of the Act. (S.Jayaswami &
Anr. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (ORISSA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 369 (ORISSA) : 2005 CRI LJ 2896 : 2006 ALL LJ 129 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 394 :
2005(29) ALL IND CAS 386 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 469 : 2005 BANK J 956 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 845 :
2005(99) CUT LT 424 : 2005(4) ICC 708 : 2005(3) OCR 714 : 2005(1) ORISSA LR 284 : 2005(4)
RCR(CRI.) 704
#9: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Insufficient funds - Offence
is covered u/s 138 NI Act - Provision of Section 420 IPC is not attracted unless mala fide
intention of the person issuing the cheque is established - Dishonest intention and
misrepresentation are to be specifically indicated to attract the provisions of Section 406 or 420
IPC and in absence of specific allegations offence is covered only u/s 138 of NI Act.
(S.Jayaswami & Anr. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (ORISSA) :
2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 369 (ORISSA) : 2005 CRI LJ 2896 : 2006 ALL LJ 129 : 2005(4)
ALL CRI LR 394 : 2005(29) ALL IND CAS 386 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 469 : 2005 BANK J 956 :
2005(4) CIV LJ 845 : 2005(99) CUT LT 424 : 2005(4) ICC 708 : 2005(3) OCR 714 : 2005(1)
ORISSA LR 284 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 704
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent without signatures of Advocate on it
- Notice received by drawer - Held, there is sufficient compliance with the provision and all other
contentions to the contrary cannot be accepted at all. (Janardhanan Vs Jayachandran), 2005(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 165 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590 (KERALA)
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (b) - Notice - Proof of sending notice at
the last known address is sufficient compliance with the provision of S.138 of the Act - Wife of
accused received notice - It is not necessary to examine postman or wife of accused to prove
that wife of accused had been duly authorised by accused to receive notice. (Sheela Vs
Gopalakrishnan), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 252 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
551 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3274 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 592 : 2005(1) ALT(CRI.) KER. 398 :
2005(3) CIV J 767 : 2006(129) COM CAS 93 : 2005(3) CRIMES 342 (KER.) : 2005(2) CUR CRI R
268 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 533 : 2004(2) ICC 834
#12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Filed by Managing Director through authorised officer - Managing Director under the
Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association authorised to file a complaint or suit Signing of complaint by Managing Director and not by authorised officer is not fatal to the case
of the complainant. (M/s.Menon Ventures, Bangalore Vs M/s.Birla 3M Ltd.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 616 (KARNATAKA)
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietorship concern - It can be described as
M/s ABC through its proprietor (Name of proprietor) or proprietor (name of proprietor) of firm
M/s ABC etc. - It makes no difference - It does not cause any prejudice to the accused. (Maan
Agro Centre Vs Eid Parry (India) Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 254 (BOMBAY)
#14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued - Drawer
sought some time to make the payment - On request of drawer cheque again presented Cheque again dishonoured - Notice issued and on failure to make the payment complaint filed Cause of action accrues only once - Complaint on the basis of dishonour of cheque for the
second time is not maintainable. (M/s.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.),
2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.C.) : 2005(2)
APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.C.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC
417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389
#15: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Absence of specific pleading in complaint
as to service of notice - Notice had in fact been sent and this fact has come in preliminary
evidence - Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal
Steels), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) :
2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548
: 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802
#16: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 9 Limitation Act, 1963, Section 12 (2) - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - In computing the period
of limitation in any suit etc. the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded
and similar provision has been made in Section 12 (2) for appeal etc. - Same principle is also
incorporated in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - Rules of limitation Act and General
clauses Act apply under Negotiable Instrument Act. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels), 2005(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 :
2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 : 2005(4) BANK
CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802
#17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque returned by bank
with endorsement 'account closed' - It amounts to returning of cheque unpaid - Accused held
guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Jaspal Singh Bedi Vs State of Punjab &
Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 596 (P&H) :
2005 CRI LJ 1061 : 2005(1) ALL CRI LR 173 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 273 : 2005(1) CHAND CRI C
126 : 2005(1) ICC 525 : 2005(2) KLJ 340 (P&H)
#18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Person incharge and responsible
to the company - Quashing of complaint sought on ground that complaint when read as a whole
not disclosing commission of an offence or that some of the accused are lawyers and/or other
professionals who had no scope for direct participation in the conduct of business of the
company - Held, the question whether a person is in charge of or is responsible to the company
for conduct of its business is to be adjudicated on the basis of materials to be placed by the
parties and whether allegations contained are sufficient to attract culpability is matter for
adjudication at the trial. (S.V.Muzumdar & Ors. Vs Gujarat State Fertilizer Co.Ltd. & Anr.),
2005(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 604 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (S.C.) : 2005(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 720 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 2436 : 2005 CRI LJ 2566 : 2005 AIR SCW
2364 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 474 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 87 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R 1858 : 2005(30) ALL
IND CAS 51 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI) 1580 : 2005(2) ALT(CRI.) SC 278 : 2005(2) BANK CLR 528 :
2005(3) BANK CAS 1 : 2005 BANKING J 406 : 2005(3) CTC 380 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 267 : 2005 CG
LJ 391 : 2005(3) CIV LJ 620 : 2005(125) COM CAS 188 : 2005 CRI LR(SC MAH GUJ) SC 450 : 2005
CRI LR (SC&MP) SC 450 : 2005(2) CRIMES 141 (SC) : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 167 : 2005(2) EAST CRI
C 291 : 2005(2) GCD SC 1627 : 2005(3) GUJ LR 2053 : 2005(3) ICC 444 : ILR(KANT.) ) 2005 SC
2494 : 2005(3) KCCR 1557 : 2005(2) KHCACJ 226 : 2005(4) MPHT 163 : 2005(3) MPLJ 271 :
2005(3) MAH LJ 754 : 2005(31) OCR 645 : 2005(2) REC CRI R 860 : 2005(4) SCC 173 : 2005(4)
SCJ 503 : 2005(4) SRJ 597 : 2005(4) SCALE 354 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1020 :
#19: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Not
signed by complainant but signed by counsel - There is no requirement of law that complaint
must be signed and presented by the complainant himself - Pleader in whose favour
Vakalatnama is executed is duly competent to appear for the complainant in the case and to
conduct, prosecute or defend the same. (Rakesh Raja Vs Naru Mohammed Sheikh), 2005(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 345 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 705 (RAJASTHAN) :
2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 77 : AIR 2007 NOC 286 (RAJ.)
#20: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint - Cognizance taken - Plea of
accused that he did not receive notice - Court rejected recall petition - On request of
complainant Court returned the cheque as complainant pleaded that on verification he
ascertained that the accused did not receive the notice personally - Cheque again presented
and again dishonoured - Second complaint filed on failure to make payment inspite of notice Presumption of service of first notice sent by registered post is available to the complainant and
not to the opposite party and moreover accused himself has stated that he did not receive the
notice which was conceded to by the complainant - Held, since no cause of action arose in
favour of the complainant on the first dishonour of cheque as such subsequent complaint is
maintainable. (A.Gangadhar Vs K.Prasad), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (ORISSA)
#21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint can be filed
within one month of service of notice, in case of non payment - One month for filing complaint is
to be reckoned from the day immediately following the day on which the period of fifteen days
from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer expires. (M/s.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash
Pal Singh & Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742
(S.C.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.C.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 :
2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 844 : 2005
DGLS 389
Held, Magistrate has committed no illegality or irregularity. (Jai Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan &
Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 829 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 690
(RAJASTHAN)
#7: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Six cheques - Joint trial - If cheques were issued
as part of the same transaction then all the cases can be jointly tried. (Mohammed Vs State of
Kerala), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 09 (KERALA) : 2004(3) KLT 330 : 2005 MLJ (CRI.) 484
#8: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Receipt of information' - Relevant date
is the date of receipt of intimation and not the date of letter of intimation. (Amina Vs Baby),
2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 158 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 277 (KERALA)
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 87-- - Cheque - Correction in amount of cheque
without consent of maker of cheque - It is material alteration which amounts to cancellation of
the instrument - Criminal prosecution cannot be launched on it. (Ramachandran Vs Dinesan),
2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 197 (KERALA) :
2005(1) KLT 353 : 2005 CRI LJ 1237 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 666 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 667 : 2005
ALL MR(CRI.) 177 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 289 : 2005 BANK J 571 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 371 : 2005(2) CUR
CRI R 457 : 2005(2) ICC 441 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER. 390 : 2005(1) KLJ 296
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Preliminary evidence Proceedings before Magistrate u/s 200 Cr.P.C. is an inquiry u/s 2(g) of the Code. (Vasudevan Vs
State of Kerala), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Preliminary evidence Statement of a complainant u/s 200 Cr.P.C. is evidence - Any statement which Court permits or
requires to be made before it by witnesses, whether such statement be tested by a cross
examination or not, will certainly be evidence for the purpose of S.3 of Evidence Act.
(Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220
#12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence u/s 138 - Facts to be proved are: (a) that
the cheque was drawn for payment of an amount of money for discharge of a debt/liability and
the cheque was dishonoured; (b) that the cheque was presented within the prescribed period;
(c) that the payee made a demand for payment of the money by giving a notice in writing to the
drawer within the stipulated period; and (d) that the drawer failed to make the payment within
15 days of the receipt of the notice. (M/s.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.),
2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.C.) : 2005(2)
APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.C.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC
417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389
#13: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque reaching drawers bank beyond six
months from its date - Acquittal is justified. (Lalu Vs Kalam), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 538
(KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 715 (KERALA)
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount paid
and complainant received the same - It shall be taken that parties have compounded the
offence - With the amendment introduced in S.147 of the Act, every offence punishable under
the Act is compoundable. (M.A.Mohana Pai Vs V.A.Jabbar & Anr.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA)
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque given as security - Cheque bounced Comes within fold of S.138 of N.I. Act. (General Auto Sales Vs Vijayalakshmi), 2005(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 654 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 386 (KERALA) : 2005(3) ALLMR 6
: 2005 CRI LJ 1454 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 455 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 597 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 234 :
2005(2) ICC 666 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER 395 : 2005(1) KLJ 301 : 2005(1) KLT 478
#16: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque - When given towards liability or
even as security, when the liability is assessed and quantified, if cheque is filled up and
presented to bank, person who had drawn the cheque cannot avoid liability under section 138 of
N.I. Act. (General Auto Sales Vs Vijayalakshmi), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (KERALA) :
2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 386 (KERALA) : 2005(3) ALLMR 6 : 2005 CRI LJ 1454 : 2005(2)
ALL CRI LR 455 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 597 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 234 : 2005(2) ICC 666 : ILR(KER.)
2005(1) KER 395 : 2005(1) KLJ 301 : 2005(1) KLT 478
#17: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued as a guarantee - Dishonour of
cheque - Offence u/s 138 is not made out - Acquittal upheld. (Sri Murugan Financiers Vs
P.V.Perumal), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 665 (MADRAS) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696
(MADRAS)
#18: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Loan taken from finance company - Promissory
notes for various amounts executed - There was no reason to issue cheque at the same time This probabilises that cheque was issued only as a guarantee for the amount payable by the
accused. (Sri Murugan Financiers Vs P.V.Perumal), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 665 (MADRAS) :
2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696 (MADRAS)
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Period of one
month for filing complaint has to be reckoned from the date immediately following the day on
which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer expires.
(Krishnankutty Nair Vs Ashokan), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 678 (KERALA)
#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent by Registered post at correct
address - Notice received back with postal endorsement 'house locked' - Complaint cannot be
dismissed at the threshold on the ground that there is no proper service of notice - Notice
whether has been served has to be decided during trial - Burden is on complainant to show that
accused managed to get an incorrect postal endorsement made and what is the effect of it has
to be considered during trial. (V.Raja Kumari Vs P.Subbarama Naidu), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 681 (S.C.) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 354 (S.C.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 308 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 127 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 109 : 2004 AIRSCW 6344 : 2004(8)
ACE 176 : 2005(1) ALD (CRL) 119 : 2004(3) ALLCRIC 3070 : 2005(1) ALLCRILR 74 : 2004(24)
ALLINDCAS 69 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 269 : 2004(2) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 447 : 2005(1) BLJ 479 :
2005(1) BANKCLR 11 : 2005(1) BANKCAS 1 : 2005 BANKJ 1 : 2005(1) BOMCR(CRI) 730 : 2005(5)
CTC 268 : 2004 CALCRILR 1161 : 2004(3) CHANDCRIC 370 : 2005(1) CIVLJ 735 : 2005(124)
COMCAS 1 : 2005(2) COMLJSC 20 : 2004(4) CRIMES 277 : 2004(4) CURCRIR 211 : 2005(79) DRJ
114 : 2005(1) EASTCRIC 60 : 2005(1) ICC 403 : ILR (KANT) 2005 SC 409 : 2005(1) JLJR 143 :
2004(9) JT 431 : 2004(4) KHCACJ 378 : 2004(3) KERLT 799 : 2004(4) LRI 481 : 2005(1) MPHT 203
: 2005(1) MPLJ 432 : 2004 MADLJ(CRI) 1104 : 2005(1) MAHLJ 1087 : 2004(29) OCR 866 : 2005(1)
PATLJR 235 : 2004(4) RCR 933 : 2004(8) SCC 774 : 2004(6) SLT 443 : 2004(9) SCALE 199 : 2005
SCC (CRI) 393 : 2004(8) SUPREME 4
#21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued when account had already been
closed - Provision of S.138 will apply. (N.A.Issac Vs Jeemon P.Abraham & Anr.), 2005(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 690 (S.C.) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 119 (S.C.) : 2004(4) REC CRI R 466
#22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Company - Notice served upon sister
concern - It is for complainant to prove that acknowledgement issued was by some one
authorised on behalf of accused company and not by any body from sister concern - PW 1
examined on behalf of company on point had no knowledge who had put initials and whether
person putting seal on initial was authorised by accused company to receive notice - Notice was
not addressed to any specific individual but simply to Director - Order of acquittal - No
interference. (D.C.W.Home Products Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 736 (BOMBAY) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 244 (BOMBAY)
#23: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against
husband and wife - Cheque issued by wife - No allegation in complaint that husband has been
doing business alongwith his wife and that the cheques were issued in discharge of her liability Held, proceedings against husband not sustainable. (Dharmendra Kumbhat & Ors. Vs State of
Rajasthan & Ors.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 768 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 206 (RAJASTHAN)
#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - In appeal
parties compromised - Conviction and sentence set aside - Offence u/s 138 is compoundable
under S.147 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Anil Kumar Haritwal Vs Alka Gupta), 2004(2) APEX
COURT JUDGMENTS 581 (S.C.) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 176 (S.C.) : 2005(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 795 (S.C.) : AIR 2004 SC 3978 : 2005 CRI LJ 3853 : 2004 AIR SCW 4344 : 2004(2)
ALL CJ 1591 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 824 : 2004 ALL MR (CRI.) 2272 : 2004(3) BLR 289 : 2004(2)
BOM CR (CRI) 2 : 2004 CAL CRI R 563 : 2004(2) CAL HN 183 : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 74 : 2004(98)
CUT LR 634 : 2004(2) KLT 725 : 2004(3) PLR 3681 : 2004(3) REC CIV R 116 : 2004(4) SCC 366 :
2004(4) SLT 959 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 1084
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Preliminary evidence
- Permissible by way of affidavit - Unless the case falls within `just exception' contemplated u/s
145 of N.I. Act, Court must receive affidavits as evidence at the stage of S.200 Cr.P.C. and
should not insist on personal appearance and examination of the complainant to give sworn
statement. (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.254 & 315 Dishonour of cheque - Defence witness - Summoning of - Accused himself not examined as a
witness - His application to summon defence witness cannot be rejected on the ground that he
should first himself be examined as a witness. (B.M.Arif Vs Boston Tea (India) Limited,
Mangalore), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 628 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
475 (KARNATAKA) : 2005 CRI LJ 375 : 2004 AIR KANT HCR 3408 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 432 :
2004(30) ALL IND CAS 309 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 33 : 2005 BANK J 985 : 2005(1) CVUR CRI R
124 : ILR(KANT.) 2004(2) KAR 2382 : 2004(3) KCCR 1455 : 2004(5) KANT LJ 439 : 2005(1)
RCR(CRI.) 253
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Original cheque lost - Secondary evidence Photocopy of cheque already on record - If cheque is really lost it would be improper and
incorrect to deny the complainant an opportunity to substantiate his grievance by adducing
secondary evidence as permitted under S.65 of Evidence Act. (Evidence Act, 1872, S.65).
(Chitaranjan Vs Jayarajan), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (KERALA)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietorship firm - Cheque issued by proprietor
- Firm need not to be impleaded as a party - Proceedings can be launched against the person
who had drawn the cheque whether it is in his capacity as the proprietor of the firm or in
personal capacity. (Babu Vs Suresh), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (KERALA) : 2004(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 614 (KERALA)
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Request to send the cheque to
handwriting expert for examination - Every such request not to be allowed - It is for the trial
Court to alertly consider the acceptability of such request and ensure that the cheque is
forwarded to the expert only if satisfactory reasons are available. (Francis Vs Pradeep), 2004(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 2004(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 13 (KERALA) : 2004(4)
RCR(CRI.) 69 : 2004 CRI LJ 3827 : 2004(2) DCR 363 : 2005(1) CRIMES 265 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR
441 : 2004(2) ALT(CRI.) KER. 283 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 320 : 2004(4) CUR CRI R 216 : 2004(2) KLJ
329 : 2004(2) KLT 1080
#5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (a) - Presentation of cheque to the bank
within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn - Means cheque to be presented
to the Bank on which the cheque is drawn. (Ajay Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2004(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 461 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ 3648 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 504 : 2004(23) ALL
IND CASE 740 : 2004 ALL MR(CRI.) 3214 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 738 : 2005(1) CUR CRI R 35 :
2004(4) ICC 641 : 2004(4) MAH LJ 132
#6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (b) - 'Within thirty days' - Means
information received from the bank where cheque is presented for collection and not from
information sent by drawer's bank to payee's bank. (Ajay Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.),
2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 461 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ 3648 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 504 :
2004(23) ALL IND CASE 740 : 2004 ALL MR(CRI.) 3214 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 738 : 2005(1)
CUR CRI R 35 : 2004(4) ICC 641 : 2004(4) MAH LJ 132
#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Not issued within 15 days of receipt of
notice from bank regarding dishonour of cheque - Notice is not valid. (Srikanth P.Hutagee Vs
Gangadhar S.Hutagekar), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (KARNATAKA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3815 :
2004(4) ALL CRI LR 350 : 2004(22) ALL IND CAS 602 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 82 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 531
: 2004(5) KANT LJ 145 : 2004(4) RCR(CRI.) 865
#8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - One month - Period of one month
cannot be read/taken as period of 30 days. (Srikanth P.Hutagee Vs Gangadhar S.Hutagekar),
2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (KARNATAKA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3815 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 350 :
2004(22) ALL IND CAS 602 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 82 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 531 : 2004(5) KANT LJ 145 :
2004(4) RCR(CRI.) 865
#9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint barred by
limitation - Magistrate cannot take cognizance of same by treating complaint as one under
Indian Penal Code regarding offence of heating where complaint does not make out case of
offence under Indian Penal Code. (Srikanth P.Hutagee Vs Gangadhar S.Hutagekar), 2004(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 493 (KARNATAKA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3815 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 350 : 2004(22) ALL IND
CAS 602 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 82 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 531 : 2004(5) KANT LJ 145 : 2004(4) RCR(CRI.)
865
#10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post and also
through certificate of posting - Notice sent as per registered post received back with postal
endorsement 'addressee left' - No evidence led that notice sent under certificate of posting was
in fact served on drawer of cheque - No proper service of notice - Complaint therefore not
maintainable. (K.Annaji Rao Vs N.Krishna Raju Sekhar & Anr.), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 547
(A.P.) : 2004 CRI LJ 2911 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 815 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 718 : 2004(4) ALT 491 :
2005(1) BANK CLR 185 : 2004(4) CAS 160 : 2004(121) COM CAS 831 : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 418
#11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque presented twice and dishonoured Complaint filed on the basis of second dishonoured - Fact of dishonour of cheque when
presented first not mentioned in complaint - Complaint cannot be said to be not maintainable
for the reason that no legal action was initiated when cheque was dishonoured for the first time.
(K.Annaji Rao Vs N.Krishna Raju Sekhar & Anr.), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 547 (A.P.) : 2004
CRI LJ 2911 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 815 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 718 : 2004(4) ALT 491 : 2005(1) BANK
CLR 185 : 2004(4) CAS 160 : 2004(121) COM CAS 831 : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 418
#12: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Security - Loan taken - Agreement executed to
repay loan within six months and cheque issued as security to be encashed in case of failure to
pay loan amount - Loan not paid - Cheque which had been issued as security transforms itself
into a cheque representing liability in terms of agreement - Accused is guilty of offence u/s 138
of the Act. (M.A.Mohana Pai Vs V.A.Jabbar & Anr.), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) :
2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA)
#13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership - Partners - Absence of
averments in complaint that partners are Incharge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct
of the business of the firm - Order of Magistrate discharging the appellants restored. (Monaben
Ketanbhai Shah & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (S.C.) :
2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 488 (S.C.) : 2004(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 473 (S.C.) : AIR
2004 SC 4274 : 2004 CRI LJ 4249 : 2004 AIR SCW 4716 : 2004(6) ACE 529 : 2004(2) ALL CJ 1935
: 2004(50) ALL CRI C 412 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 963 : 2004(3) ALL CRI R 2084 : 2004(21) ALL IND
CAS 1 : 2004(56) ALL LR 713 : 2004(2) ALT (CRI.) 237 S.C. : 2004(3) BLJR 1763 : 2004(2) BANK
CLR 714 : 2004 BANK J 906 : 2004(2) BOM. CR (CRI.) 512 : 2004 CAL CRI R 1007 : 2004(2) CAL LJ
215 : 2004(3) CHAND LR (CIV&CRI) 714 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 717 : 2004(5) COM LJ SC 91 : 2004(61)
COR LA 168 : 2004(3) CRIMES 231 (SC) : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 88 : 2004(3) EAST CRI C 158 :
2005(1) GCD SC 325 : 2004(3) GUJ LH 769 : 2005(1) GUJ LR 21 : 2004(4) ICC 680 : 2004(22) IND
LD 145 : 2004(2) JCJR 172 : JT 2004(6) SC 309 : 2004(3) KHCACJ 570 : 2004(3) KLT 428 : 2005(1)
MPHT 97 : 2004(29) OCR 149 : 2004(4) PAT LJR 91 : 2004(3) PLR 615 : 2004(3) RAJ CRI C 753 :
2004(4) RAJ LW 499 : 2004(3) REC CRI R 799 : 2004(7) SCC 15 : 2004(54) SEBI&CL SC 595 :
2004(7) SRJ 548 : 2004(6) SCALE 507 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 1857 : 2004(2) UJ(SC) 1337 : 2004(9) AD
22
#14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Another person' refers to payee, holder, holder
in due course and endorsee - These words carry same meaning as they are understood in civil
jurisprudence - Consideration inter se between drawee and holder in due course is not
necessary to bind drawer. (G.P.R.Housing Private Limited, Bangalore & Anr. Vs K.Venugopala
Krishna), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24
(KARNATAKA)
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Joint Account Holder - Account could be operated
by either of them - Cheque issued by one to discharge his liability - Account holder who has not
drawn the cheque is not liable u/s 138 of the Act. (Devi Vs Haridas), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
649 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 285 (KERALA) : 2004(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 611 :
I(2005) BANKING CASES 273 : 2004 CRI LJ 4710 : 2004(24) ALL IND CAS 909 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI.)
16 : 2004(2) ALT(CRI.) KER 501 : ILT(KER) 2004(3) KER. 636 : 2004(3) KLJ 575 : 2004(3) KLT 355 :
2004(4) RCR(CRI.) 641
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction in two separate
cases - Sentences to run concurrently. (Satpal Chaudhary Vs Kuldip Mahajan & Anr.), 2003(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 666 (P&H) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (P&H)
#2: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Appeal
against - Dismissal in absence of counsel for appellant - Held, criminal appeal cannot be
dismissed for want of prosecution simplicitor without examining the merits thereof. (Raghubhai
Surabhai Bharwad Vs Satishkumar Ranchhoddas Patel & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300
(GUJARAT) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 264 (GUJARAT)
#3: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Received by wife of the petitioner Notice is duly served upon petitioner. (Raghubhai Surabhai Bharwad Vs Satishkumar
Ranchhoddas Patel & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300 (GUJARAT) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 264 (GUJARAT)
#4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Partnership firm - Dissolution - One partner
issued cheque to the other towards his liability - Presumption is that cheque was for the
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. (Abdul Hameed Vs State of
Rajasthan & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 194 (RAJASTHAN)
#5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice
not given to petitioner who was one of the directors of the company - He had not either drawn
or signed the cheque - He was merely a non-executive Director of the Company - He had
resigned from the Board of Directors before issuance of the cheque - It was accused No.2 who
was in sole management and incharge of day-to-day affairs of the company - Proceedings
against petitioner quashed. (Chaitan M.Maniar Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 418 (BOMBAY) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 342 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ
2343 : 2004(20) ALL IND CAS 188 : 2004 ALL MR(CRI.) 2027 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 584 : 2004(2)
BOM CR(CRI.) 14 : 2004(3) CIV LR 294 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 1035
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque issued against loan taken for
motor vehicle on hire purchase basis - Default in repayment of loan - Possession of vehicle taken
by owner - Hire purchase agreement is thus terminated - Dishonour of cheque - Held, when
cheque is presented and dishonoured after termination of hire purchase agreement then no
offence is made out u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. (Sudha Beevi Vs State of Kerala),
2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (KERALA) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 472 (KERALA) :
2004 CRI LJ 3418 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 165 : 2004(21) ALL INC CAS 336 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 71 :
2004(3) CUR CRI R 437 : 2004(3) ICC 526 : ILT(KER.) 2004(3) KERL 312 : 2004(3) KHC ACJ 289 :
2004(2) KLT 746 : 2004(2) KLJ 138
#7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque - Cheque without actual amount
payable is not a cheque - Amount payable can be filled up subsequently with the consent of the
person who issued the cheque - If amount is filled up subsequently without consent of the
person who issued the cheque then presumption u/s 139 stands rebutted - A blank cheque
cannot be enforced even though it is issued for legal liability. (Avon Organics Ltd. Vs Poineer
Products Limited & Ors.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (A.P.) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 335 (A.P.) : 2004(1) CRIMES 567 : 2004(1) ALT (CRL.) 90
#8: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued after closure of account - Cheque
dishonoured - Such a cheque falls within the sweep of S.138 of the Act. (Salim Vs Thomas),
2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (KERALA) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 439 (KERALA) :
2004 CRI LJ 3096 : 2004(2) ALL CRI LR 791 : 2004(17) ALL IND CAS 461 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 41 :
2004(4) ICC 618 : ILR(KER.) 2004(3) KER. 384 : 2004(1) KLJ 727 : 2004(1) KLT 816 : 2004(52)
SEBI & CL KER. 293
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment made - Part payment remained
unpaid even after expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice - Accused has committed
the offence u/s 138 NI Act. (Thekkan & Co. Vs Anitha), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13
(KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 65 (KERALA)
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Payments made before the presentation of
cheque and before receipt of notice - Nothing precludes a Court from taking into account prior
payments made before the presentation of the cheque or before the receipt of notice in
deciding whether the amount due under the cheque has been paid. (Thekkan & Co. Vs Anitha),
2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 65 (KERALA)
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Dishonour of cheque Prosecution of a partner - Incharge and responsible - Not required to be specifically stated in the
complaint - Substance of complaint must show that he was incharge and responsible for
conduct of business of firm. (Inder Sehgal Vs M/s Thakar Petro Chemicals Ltd.), 2003(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 580 (P&H) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 18 (P&H)
#12: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Date of service - Complaint alleged to be
premature - Date of service of notice not indicated on postal acknowledgment - It is the function
of the person receiving the notice to place the date of receipt of notice. (Raghubhai Surabhai
Bharwad Vs Satishkumar Ranchhoddas Patel & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300
(GUJARAT) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 264 (GUJARAT)
#13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Witnesses not turning up despite service of
summons - Evidence closed - Held, it is duty of Court to compel appearance of witnesses - Order
of closer of evidence is improper - Trial Court directed to compel appearance of witnesses.
(Neelam Sharma Vs M/s.Sri Gangadas Irrigation System), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 114
(RAJASTHAN) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 171 (RAJASTHAN)
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142, 53-- - Legal representative of the payee or
holder in due course can file a complaint u/s 138 read with S.142 of the Act if other conditions in
the sections are satisfied. (Chandra Babu Vs Remani), 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 641
(KERALA) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 12 (KERALA)
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (b) - `Receipt of information' - Means
receipt of information from bank in writing - Oral information is not sufficient. (Immanuel Vs
Rajappan), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 652
(KERALA)
#16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Unregistered firm can
prosecute criminal complaint regarding dishonour of cheque - S.69(2) Partnership Act is not
applicable as it bars filing of a civil suit and not a criminal complaint. (Beacon Industries,
Banglore Vs Anupam Ghosh), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 231 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 348 (KARNATAKA)
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonor of cheque - Period of 30 days expiring
on a holiday - Complaint filed on next day is valid. (Chandradasan Vs George), 2004(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 291 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 774 (KERALA)
#18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietorship concern - It is not necessary to
implead the proprietary concern as a party when it is a sole proprietary concern. (Shivaraj Vs
Gurudeva), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 520 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
714 (KARNATAKA)
#19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Provision - Applicability - When it is a legally
enforceable debt or liability then S.138 applies and relationship of parties is not at all a factor
germane to the proceeding. (Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 2004(1) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 273 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 693 (S.C.) : AIR 2004 SC 408 : 2004 CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC
235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 : 2004 CLC 51 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 :
2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 : 2004(13) ALL IND CAS 741 : 2004(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR
471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR 733 : 2004(1) BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 660 : 2004(2) BOM
LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI LR 113 : 2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI.) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 :
2003(117) COM CAS 781 : 2004(2) COM LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP)
SC 248 : 2004(1) CRIMES 81 (SC) : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13)
IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC 451 : 2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI.) 26 :
2004(2) MAH LJ 348 : 2004(27) OCR 476 : 2004(1) PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7)
SLT 247 : 2003(9) SCALE 791 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME
490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC) 525 : 2004(1) TNLR 102
#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Provision - Applicability - It is legally perverse to
say that provision is applicable only in case of transaction involving Mercantile relationship.
(Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S.C.) :
2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S.C.) : AIR 2004
SC 408 : 2004 CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC 235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 :
2004 CLC 51 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 : 2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 :
2004(13) ALL IND CAS 741 : 2004(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR 471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR
733 : 2004(1) BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 660 : 2004(2) BOM LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI
LR 113 : 2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI.) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 : 2003(117) COM CAS 781 :
2004(2) COM LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 248 : 2004(1) CRIMES
81 (SC) : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13) IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC
451 : 2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI.) 26 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 348 :
2004(27) OCR 476 : 2004(1) PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7) SLT 247 : 2003(9)
SCALE 791 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME 490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC)
525 : 2004(1) TNLR 102
#21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Stop payment' - Merely because the drawer
issued notice to the drawee or to the bank for stoppage of payment it will not preclude an action
under S.138 of the Act by the drawee or the holder of the cheque in due course. (Goa Plast (P)
Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 577 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S.C.) : AIR 2004 SC 408 : 2004
CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC 235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 : 2004 CLC 51 :
2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 : 2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 : 2004(13) ALL IND
CAS 741 : 2004(1) ALT(CRI.) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR 471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR 733 : 2004(1)
BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 660 : 2004(2) BOM LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI LR 113 :
2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI.) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 : 2003(117) COM CAS 781 : 2004(2) COM
LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 248 : 2004(1) CRIMES 81 (SC) :
2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13) IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC 451 :
2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI.) 26 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 348 : 2004(27)
OCR 476 : 2004(1) PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7) SLT 247 : 2003(9) SCALE 791 :
2004 SCC(CRI.) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME 490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC) 525 :
2004(1) TNLR 102
#22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Amendment Cheque number and date of information received from bank sought to be amended - Held, trial
Court has inherent power to allow to rectify typographical mistakes to do justice between the
parties - Criminal Courts have an auxiliary power subject to restrictions which justice, equity,
good conscience and legal provisions demand provided it will not unnecessarily prejudice
somebody else - Amendment allowed. (Bhim Singh Vs Kan Singh), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
608 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 232 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) DCR 158 (RAJ.) :
2004 CRI LJ 4306 (RAJ.)
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Holder in due course'- Bank purchasing cheque
from payee - Payee however not indorsed the cheque in favour of Bank - Bank is neither the
payee nor holder in due course - S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act is not applicable when notice
issued by Bank is neither by the payee nor by holder in due course. (Punjab National Bank Vs
Himgiri Traders & Anr.), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (P&H) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 380 (P&H)
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Holder in due course' - Means any person who
for consideration became the possessor of a cheque payable to bear or the payee or indorsee
thereof. (Punjab National Bank Vs Himgiri Traders & Anr.), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716
(P&H) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 380 (P&H)
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Amount and payee's name not written
by drawer but by somebody else or by payee - By itself not a ground to contend that cheque is
not validly issued or that the cheque was not executed at all. (Lillykutty Vs Lawrance), 2003(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 601 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 38 (KERALA) : 2003(3) KLT
721
#1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - No allegation in
complaint that cheques were issued with consent or knowledge of Directors - No allegation that
Directors were responsible for control of day to day business of company or had active role in
issuing cheques - Order of cognizance against Directors quashed. (Madanlal & Ors. Vs
Bhanwarlal), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (RAJASTHAN)
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Once issued, though unserved,
complainant forfeits his right to present the cheque again - If notice issued within time and the
same is not served for any reason, complainant is not bared to issue another notice even
though it exceeds the period of fifteen days - Presentation of cheque again on the ground that
notice issued originally was returned unserved, instead of taking recourse to issue notice a
second time, not legal and does not save the period of limitation. (Sunrise Oleo Chemicals Ltd.
& Anr. Vs M/s.K.M.Enterprises & Anr.), 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 567 (A.P.) : 2003(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 35 (A.P.) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0654 : 2003(2) DCR 561
#3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sister concerns - Cheque
issued to discharge the liability of company `A' drawn on account of company `B' which is a
sister concern of company `A' - Held, company `A' cannot escape the liable on the premise that
it is not the maker or drawer of the cheque. (Sunrise Oleo Chemicals Ltd. & Anr. Vs
M/s.K.M.Enterprises & Anr.), 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 567 (A.P.) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 35 (A.P.) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0654 : 2003(2) DCR 561
#4: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Affidavits and documents
in support of complaint - Magistrate has power to accept affidavit of the complainant and
witnesses, if any and to proceed further without recording statements under S.200 Cr.P.C.
(Pankaj Kapoor Vs State & Ors.), 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (DELHI)
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Time barred debt - Cheque issued - When a
person issues a cheque he acknowledges his liability to pay - In event of dishonour of cheque he
is not entitled to claim that the debt had become barred by limitation and that the liability was
not thus enforceable. (Ramakrishnan Vs Parthasaradhy), 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 228
(KERALA) : 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 145 (KERALA) : 2003(3) ICC 662 : 2003(3) REC CRI
R 711 : 2003(2) KLT 613
#6: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent deliberately at wrong address Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days of issuance of notice - Order of taking cognizance
quashed. (Rama Chandra Panigrahi Vs State of Orissa & Anr.), 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385
(ORISSA) : 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 314 (ORISSA)
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - Stop payment before the
due date of payment - Held, S.138 of the Act is attracted. (Goaplast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Shri Chico Ursula
D'Souza & Anr.), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.C.)
#8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Summons - Service - Case dismissed for non
payment of registered postal charges - There is no procedure for issuance of process to an
accused by post - If service of summons is not fruitful then Court can issue bailable or nonbailable warrant of arrest - Order as to payment of postal charges being illegal as such
consequent dismissal for not taking steps is also not proper in the eye of law. (M/s Nav
Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mill Ltd. Vs M/s Shivashakti Poultry Farm), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
221 (KARNATAKA) : 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 270 (KANT.) : 2002 CRI LJ 4446 (KANT.) :
2003(1) CUR CRI R 180 : 2002(3) BANK CAS 403 : 2002 AIR KANT HCR 2682
#9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint u/s 138 as well
as civil suit for recovery - Two proceedings are independent of each other - If Criminal Court
levies fine on accused and orders payment of compensation out of amount of fine, then Civil
Court can take that fact into account in moulding its award for compensation if any, while
decreeing suit subsequently - When decree passed by Civil Court is only money decree not
involving award of compensation question of adjusting compensation awarded by Criminal Court
against such decree does not arise - Where Civil Court which decreed suit had not made
adjustment of compensation awarded by Criminal Court, Court executing decree has no
jurisdiction to go behind decree and make adjustment. (Smt.Gayathri Vs Smt.Clement Mary),
2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2003 KANT. 134 : 2003 AIR KANT. HCR 144 :
2003(2) ALD (CRL.) 175 : 2003(2) ALL CRI LR 858 : 2003(4) ALL IND CAS 88 : 2003(2) BANK CLR
760 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 252 : 2003(2) CHAND LR (CIV&CRI) 630 : 2003(2) CIV LJ 611 :
2003(114) COM CAS 260 : 2003(2) KANT. LJ 120 : 2003(2) REC CRI R 739
#10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Prosecution proceedings
not to be quashed at initial stage if uncontroverted allegations in complaint and evidence
recorded at the preliminary stage of enquiry prima facie bring out the case within the ambit of
S.138 of the Act. (Shakti Bhakoo Vs Varun Khemka), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 358 (P&H) :
2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 237 (P&H)
pursuing his case seriously and appearing on every hearing - When the case was not fixed for
evidence of complainant, Magistrate could dispense with the appearance of complainant u/s
256 Cr.P.C. and adjourn the case. (Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Vs Mangat Rai),
2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 609 (P&H) : 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (P&H)
#21: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Insertion of date on an
undated cheque - By itself does not amount to material alteration so as to render the cheque
void. (Sunil Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 217
(RAJASTHAN)
#22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Execution of cheque
admitted as such consideration thereunder is presumed - Holder has implied authority to put
date on undated cheque and the same does not amount to material alteration - No ground to
quash proceedings. (Sunil Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 217 (RAJASTHAN)
#23: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount Rs.Three
lacs - Sentence of simple imprisonment of one month - Compensation of Rs.3, 10, 000 payable
under S.357(3) Cr.P.C. and in default of payment of compensation further simple imprisonment
of sixty days. (Anilkumar Vs Shammy), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (KERALA) : 2003(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (KERALA) : 2002(3) KLT 852
#24: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Normally
in a successful prosecution u/s 138, a direction under S.357 Cr.P.C. must follow. (Anilkumar Vs
Shammy), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269
(KERALA) : 2002(3) KLT 852
#25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Amount was due to
complainant by father of accused and not by accused - Cheque not issued by accused to pay his
father's debt but was taken by force from him by complainant - Prosecution of accused for
bouncing of cheque is not legal - Accused acquitted and his conviction and sentence set aside.
(Gundepaneni Nagabushanam Vs T.Eswar Rao & Anr.), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 393 (A.P.) :
2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 651 (A.P.)
#1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pre-mature complaint Condition of expiry of 15 days after notice applies to taking cognizance and not to filing of
complaint which can be kept pending as premature till prescribed time. (Mahendra Agrawal Vs
Gopi Ram Mahajan), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 626 (RAJASTHAN) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 527 (RAJASTHAN)
#2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - All the partners cannot be
proceed as accused on the assumption that liability of all the partners is joint as only those
partners who are actually incharge of the firm and are responsible for the conduct of its
business can be proceeded against as accused. (Punjab State Coop. Supply and Marketing
Federation Ltd. Vs M/s Malerkotla Rice Mills & Ors.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 386 (P&H) :
2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 700 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0172
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 87-- - Subsequent insertion of amount and name of
payee without consent of drawer amounts to material alteration rendering the instrument void
as in the absence of certainty regarding the amount and the payee at the time of issue of
cheque the cheque cannot be said to be a valid one - However, subsequent putting of date in an
undated cheque would not always amount to material alteration. (Capital Syndicate Vs
Jameela), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675
(KERALA)
#4: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint for
non prosecution - Complaint restored - Held, order of Magistrate restoring complaint is without
jurisdiction. (Ram Bhaj Jain Vs M/s Brar Rice & General Mills), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 615
(P&H) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 703 (P&H)
#5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Prosecution of Chairman and
Managing Director in absence of joining of Company as an accused - No infirmity in the
complaint. (Ashok Chaturvedi Vs Dr.(Mrs.) Nirmala Jaywant Patil & Anr.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT
Limitation Act. (Rayala Sima Agro Enterprises & Ors. Vs Gujarat Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. &
Anr.), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 651 (A.P.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 460 (A.P.)
#17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sentence of fine Quantum - Cheque amount Rs.1.5 lacs and fine imposed Rs.15, 000/- - Fine enhanced to Rs.3
lacs out of which Rs.2.95 lacs payable to the complainant and Rs.5, 000/- to be appropriated to
the State and in default accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.
(Smt.Bhavani Vs D.C.Doddarangaiah & Anr.), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (KARNATAKA)
#18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Defects in the format of complaint - Court can
grant permission to rectify the same. (M/s Bedi Sons Steels & Wires Vs M/s B.G.Brothers),
2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 41 (P&H) : 2002(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0496
#19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietorship concern - Complaint can either be
filed by proprietorship firm through its proprietor or by proprietor in his individual capacity. (M/s
Bedi Sons Steels & Wires Vs M/s B.G.Brothers), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (P&H) : 2002(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 41 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ
(BANKING) 0496
#20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Contention that A-5 was
not the Director of the company by the date cheques were issued - It is a question of fact to be
decided by trial Court after recording evidence. (S.P.Subramaniam & Ors. Vs Vasavi Cotton
Traders), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (A.P.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (A.P.)
#21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Directors - Complaint disclosing that
A-2 issued cheque on behalf of A-1 company with the consent and knowledge of the directors It cannot be held that there is no accusation against the Directors of the Company - It is for the
Directors to establish during trial that they are not responsible for the day to day business of the
company. (S.P.Subramaniam & Ors. Vs Vasavi Cotton Traders), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 57
(A.P.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (A.P.)
#22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - New check issued on taking back
cheque issued earlier - This fact mentioned in notice - Complaint based on cheque issued earlier
- In proof of complaint, new cheque produced - Cheque issued earlier, on which complaint based
not produced - Summoning order passed only on the basis of cheque issued earlier without
taking note of the fact that a different cheque was introduced into evidence - Held, complaint is
not only defective but also there is total non-applicaton of mind by Magistrate - This is not a
mere technical defect which can be allowed to be amended - Since cheque is the very basis of
complaint and when very foundation has not been properly laid by giving correct number of
cheque, complaint itself becomes not maintainable. (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan
Lal), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H)
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Defects in complaint - A defect which goes to the
root of the matter, cannot be allowed to amended. (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal),
2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H)
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Four cheques clubbed in one complaint Complaint not to be quashed - It is not such a defect which goes to the root of the matter. (M/s
Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H)
#25: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sole proprietorship firm - Proprietor was the
complainant company - Held, complaint can be filed by any person connected with company
may be its Director or Manager or any other person so authorised. (M/s EITA India Ltd. Vs NCT of
Delhi & Ors.), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 550 (DELHI) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 126
(DELHI)
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - List of witnesses - Omission - Not a lacuna as
there is only one witness in such cases viz. complainant or payee of cheque. (Holiyappa K.Patil
alias Ajjappa Vs Lokappa), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 367 (KARNATAKA)
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietary concern - Complainant can be either
the proprietor or any other person who is authorised specifically in regard thereto. (Y.Venkata
Reddy Vs M/s Jagadamba Enterprises), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 185 (A.P.)
#3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Manager - Authorisation - A person
can represent the corporate even on an authorisation letter and it does not require any
supporting resolution to be passed by the concern. (Y.Venkata Reddy Vs M/s Jagadamba
Enterprises), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 185 (A.P.)
#4: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sole proprietorship concern - Sole proprietor
happened to be a company - Complaint can be filed by any person connected with the
company, may be its director or manager or any other person, so authorised by the company,
who can represent the company in legal proceedings. (M/s.Eita India Ltd. Vs N.C.T. of Delhi),
2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 187 (DELHI)
#5: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Not given within 15 days of intimation of
dishonour of cheque - Delay cannot be condoned either u/s 5 Limitation Act or u/s 473 Cr.P.C. Complaint quashed. (S.V.Muthye Vs State), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 204 (DELHI) : 2002(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 190 (DELHI)
#6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proceedings u/s 138 are under the Negotiable
Instruments Act which is a self contained special law - Provisions of other Acts, like the Indian
Partnership Act, are not attracted. (C.Prabhu Vs Sangam Corporation (Finance and Investment),
Bangalore), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0127
#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Complaint filed by Manager Authority - When Manager stated that he is the Manager of the partnership firm and is
authorised to do so at the earliest stage the Court need not doubt his authorisation or capacity If at all the same is required to be considered, it is at the stage while trial is taking place.
(C.Prabhu Vs Sangam Corporation (Finance and Investment), Bangalore), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 253 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0127
#8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Complaint filed by Manager - At
the time of filing complaint it is not required to be disclosed that he is authorised to do so or
produce any authorisation. (C.Prabhu Vs Sangam Corporation (Finance and Investment),
Bangalore), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0127
#9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complainant
company ceased to exist on its merger with another company - Not a ground to quash criminal
proceedings against drawer - Criminal liability of drawer is not obliterated by merger of
companies. (Sannidhi Agencies Vs Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 277 (KARNATAKA) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0421
#10: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Revision against conviction - Death of
complainant during pendency of revision - L.R's allowed to be brought on record as financial
benefit has accrued by order of conviction. (Mohinder Dutt Sharma Vs Bhagat Ram), 2002(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 280 (H.P.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 297 (H.P.)
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Plea of non
service of notice - This fact can only be decided during trial of case. (Urjit Singh Vs State of
Punjab), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 361 (P&H) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0049
#12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Cheque
signed by petitioner at Salem - Cheque amount was to be paid at Salem - Cheque was to be
sent to Varanasi for collection purpose but the encashment had to take place at Salem - Held,
cause of action wholly arose at Salem and no part of cause of action arose at Varanasi Allahabad High Court has no jurisdiction to stay the complaint filed at Salem. (Om Prakash Vs
State of U.P. & Ors.), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 145 (ALLAHABAD) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING)
0545
#13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Refusal - 15 days time to make payment
will start on the next date of refusal - Complaint is to be filed within one month from the expiry
of 15 days from the refusal of the notice. (Holiyappa K.Patil alias Ajjappa Vs Lokappa), 2002(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 367 (KARNATAKA)
#14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by `E' and
not by `T' - Even assuming connivance between `E' and `T' cognizance cannot be taken against
`T' - Offence, if any, by `T' not covered by Act. (M/s.Tata Finance Ltd. Vs J.S.Fourwheel Motors
Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 689 (RAJASTHAN)
#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Death of accused during
trial - Proceedings will abate - Legal heirs cannot be prosecuted. (Sham Lal, Director, G.S.Auto
Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar Aggarwal), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 370 (P&H) : 2002(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 505 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0083
#16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by company
dishonoured - Prosecution against company and Managing Director who signed the cheque Death of Managing Director - Another Director cannot be prosecuted in absence of an averment
that the said director was also responsible for the conduct and business of the company Proceedings quashed. (Sham Lal, Director, G.S.Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar Aggarwal),
2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 370 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 505 (P&H) : 2002 (2)
ISJ (BANKING) 0083
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence under section 138
N.I. Act is made out only if cheque is dishonoured for want of funds in the account and not for
the reason that signatures differed. (Rejikumar Vs Sukumaran), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 393
(KERALA) : AIR 2003 KANT HCR 75 N : 2002(3) ICC 633 : 2002(3) REC CIV R 763.2 : 2002(2) ISJ
(BANKING) 0321 : 2002 CRI LJ 3255 : 2002(4) CRIMES 0289 : 2002(3) REC CRI R 213 : 2002(4)
CRI LJ 3255
#18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Complaint - Filed by Assistant
Manager of Credit Control - Authorisation can be express or implied and the implicity has to be
inferred from the circumstances of the case and the things spoken or written, or the ordinary
course of dealing. (The Waterbase Ltd. Vs Karuthuru Ravendra), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
436 (A.P.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 676 (A.P.)
#19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and
sentenced to one year RI and a fine of Rs.4000/- - During revision accused paid the amount of
cheque and fine - Accused remained in custody for 18 days - Sentence reduced to already
undergone. (Sat Pal Vs State of Punjab), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (P&H) : 2002(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (P&H)
#20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cannot be
dismissed on such technical ground that it does not state cause of action. (Hotline Shares and
Securities Ltd., & Ors. Vs Dinesh Ganeshmal Shah), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 581
(KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504
#21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Not presented
personally by complainant but presented by his Advocate - Complaint, held, validly presented.
(Hotline Shares and Securities Ltd., & Ors. Vs Dinesh Ganeshmal Shah), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 581 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504
#22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Company - Directors - Where allegations
made against directors prima facie constitute offence, complaint is maintainable - It is for a
particular director to show that he was not incharge of affairs of company when offence alleged
was committed. (Hotline Shares and Securities Ltd., & Ors. Vs Dinesh Ganeshmal Shah), 2002(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors and General Manager Petitioners alleged to be responsible for the conduct of the business of the company - Obligation
as required u/s 141 is discharged - Complaint cannot be quashed - However, petitioners are
entitled to prove that offence was committed without their knowledge during trial.
(S.C.Chhabra, Director Vs M/s Gontermann Peipers (India) Limited), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
596 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0348
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Three notices - In response to the first
notice petitioner requested to represent the cheque - Cheque presented and again dishonoured
- Second notice issued - Again requested to represent the cheque - Cheque presented and again
dishonoured - Third notice issued - Failure to make payment - Complaint filed - Held, if no
complaint is filed on the first cause of action the payee is disentitled to create another cause of
action to file a complaint for the purpose of launching a prosecution on it - Complaint not legally
maintainable. (Archana Publication Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Delhi), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 277
(DELHI)
#18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Police report - Cognizance can only be
taken upon a complaint - Magistrate cannot take cognizance on police report. (Nemichand
Swaroopchand Shaha Vs M/s T.H.Raibhagi Firm), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 286
(KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0536
#19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Regular commercial
transaction - Offence u/s 138 is made out and not an offence of cheating under Sections 415
and 420 IPC. (Nemichand Swaroopchand Shaha Vs M/s T.H.Raibhagi Firm), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 286 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0536
#20: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - No allegation in complaint that
accused No.3 was incharge of and was responsible to the partnership firm for conduct of its
business or that she had consented or connived to the commission of said offence nor there is
an evidence to this effect - Summoning order against such partner quashed. (Mukesh Aggarwal
Vs State), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 327 (DELHI) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0574 : 2001(7) AD
(DELHI) 735 : 2002(1) JCC 134
#21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Payment stopped - In notice reason for
return of cheque mentioned `Insufficient funds' - Notice is not valid. (Sanjay Garg Vs Som Nath
Singla), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0052
#22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Second cheque issued as first cheque alleged to
be lost - Second cheque got encashed - Thereafter first cheque presented which was returned
with endorsement `Payment stopped' - Prosecution launched on basis of first cheque quashed Facts show that complainant filed the complaint with mala fide intention to harass the accused.
(Sanjay Garg Vs Som Nath Singla), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ
(BANKING) 0052
#23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Non mention of cheque number - Not
fatal when only one cheque is issued and all other particulars are furnished. (Nityanand Vs
Smt.Jamuna Prakash), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING)
0210
#24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant - Death of - Complaint does not ipso
facto terminate or abate upon death of complainant - Where complainant is dead, his legal
representative, agent or power-of-attorney holder can be permitted to prosecute complaint.
(Jimmy Jahangir Madan Vs Mrs.Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (Deceased) by L.Rs.), 2002(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 539 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0200 : (2003)115 COM. CAS. 770
#25: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - A partner though not signatory
to the cheque yet is liable for the offence of dishonour of cheque if he is responsible for the
business of the partnership firm. (Harsukhbhai Lakshmanbhai Vs State of Gujarat), 2002(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 221 (GUJARAT)
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Power of attorney holder - Is competent to
present the complaint - Question whether sworn statement of power of attorney can be
recorded - Question not decided. (S.Ramesh Vs Basanth Kumar Patil), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 135 (KARNATAKA)
#2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Issued after five months of receipt of
information from Bank - Notice is clearly beyond the time fixed under S.138(b) of the Act Compliant and summoning order quashed. (M/s.R.D.Jindal Cotton Factory Vs M/s.Surjeet Udyog,
Kotkapura), 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 662 (P&H)
270 (S.C.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0307 : 2001(3) SCC 609 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 834 : 2001(2) AD
(SC) 330 : AIR 2001 SC 1161 : 2001(42) ACC 651 : 2001(3) MAH LJ 1 : JT 2001(3) SC 114 : 2001
CRI LJ 1250 : 2001(2) KLT 148 (SC)
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Can be proceeded
against only if he was at the time of commission of the offence was in charge of and was
responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company - A director cannot
be proceed against merely for the reason that he happens to be a director of the company.
(Kumari Vs Sankara Raman), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 79 (KERALA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING)
0638 : 2001(2) KLT 503 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 150
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by A in discharge of liability of B &
C - In absence of any document creating the liability of B & C in favour of A, mere statement
that the cheque was issued by A for and on behalf of B & C is not sufficient to give the cause of
action for a complaint u/s 138 of the Act. (Hiten Sagar & Anr. Vs IMC Ltd. & Anr.), 2001(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 571 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0244
#2: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - By power of attorney holder Complaint can be lodged by power of attorney holder. (Anil Kumar Haritwal Vs Sant Prakash
Gupta), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (M.P.) : 2001(2) MPLJ 488 : 2001(II) MPJR 68 : 2001(3)
REC CRI R 675 : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0524
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Cheque dishonoured on 13.1.1994 Intimation given to payee on 17.1.1994 - Fifteen days period for sending notice of demand is to
be counted from the receipt of information from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as
unpaid. (M/s Munoth Investments Ltd. Vs M/s Puttukola Properties Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 325 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 480 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL
298 (S.C.)
#4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 50-- - 'A holder in due course' - Means a person
who for consideration became the possessor of a cheque if payable to bearer before the amount
became payable - Unless contrary is proved the holder of a negotiable instrument shall be
presumed to be a holder in due course. (Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd. &
Ors.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 241 (S.C.) :
2001(4) MAH LJ 895 : AIR 2001 SC 3641 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 245 : S.C. ON DISHONOUR OF
CHEQUES 70
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Pay Order' - Whether a cheque within the
meaning of S.138 of the Act? - Held, Yes. (Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd. &
Ors.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 241 (S.C.) :
2001(4) MAH LJ 895 : AIR 2001 SC 3641 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 245 : S.C. ON DISHONOUR OF
CHEQUES 70
#6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Account not in existence by the date on which
the cheque was issued - Cheque dishonoured - No case is made out against the accused for the
offence u/s 138 of the Act. (Deepa Finance Corporation Vs A.K.Mohammed), 2001(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 382 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0087
#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Account closed' - Cheque returned with this
endorsement - Amounts to dishonesty as such comes within the definition of the provision.
(Thirumala Agencies & Anr. Vs Samala Mareppa & Sons), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 423
(KARNATAKA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0403 : 2001(3) RCR(CRL.) 328
#8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership - Sleeping partner - Not a person
incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business - Prosecution against
sleeping partner quashed. (Smt.Shakti Bhakoo Vs M/s Raj Lakshmi Mills (Regd.)), 2001(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 447 (P&H)
#9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sleeping partner - Petition
for discharge of sleeping partner u/s 245(2) Cr.P.C. dismissed - Revision also dismissed by
Sessions Court - Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing complaint and summoning order - No
mention of order of Magistrate or Sessions Judge made in the petition as those orders were not
challenged in the petition - Held, mentioning the order of Magistrate or Sessions Judge in the
petition not fatal. (Smt.Shakti Bhakoo Vs M/s Raj Lakshmi Mills (Regd.)), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 447 (P&H)
#10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards
discharge of loan - Fact that same loan liability subsequently became subject matter of
arbitration by Registrar and that award was passed against accused drawer, does not absolve
accused drawer of liability of criminal offence. (The Yamakanamardi Urban Co-operative Credit
Society Limited Vs Raju Basavantrao Bhosale), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (KARNATAKA)
#11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pre-mature complaint - Notice served on
2.12.1994 and complaint filed on 12.12.1994 before expiry of 15 days of service of notice Complaint dismissed - Cause of action arises after expiry of 15 days of service of notice. (Ishwar
Rama Gunaga Vs Ramdas Anant Prabhu), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KARNATAKA) : 2001
ISJ (BANKING) 0764
#12: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence There is no power to compound an offence punishable under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act. (Ram Raghav Chaturvedi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 276
(M.P.)
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Any liability- Means any kind of liability of the
drawer and not any other's liability, unless the payee, the drawer and the original debtor
entered into any agreement to that effect. (Hiten Sagar & Anr. Vs IMC Ltd. & Anr.), 2001(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 571 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0244
#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Seven cheques - All dishonoured - Seven
complaints - Conviction in all complaints - Sentence will run concurrently as it is a single
transaction of `Khata' account - Provisions of S.427 Cr.P.C. will apply. (M/s A.M.Agencies Vs
United Phosphorus Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.)
#15: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dismissal for default - Default in appearance of
complaint was primarily on account of wrong noting of date - Complaint restored to its original
number. (Manisha Trading Pvt.Ltd. Vs State & Ors.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (DELHI)
#16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque - Contention of accused that he
issued a blank cheque which was used by complainant and was not issued in discharge of
liability - Held, this contention cannot be raised in revision. (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs
B.D.Aggarwal & Sons Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING)
0344
#17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Even if there is a civil dispute between the
parties and the accused have issued a cheque for the payment of the amount in question and if
the cheque is dishonoured it will make an offence under S.138. (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd.
Vs B.D.Aggarwal & Sons Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING)
0344
#18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Offence is committed Insufficiency of funds when cheque was presented need not to be proved. (M/s Steel Authority
of India Ltd. Vs B.D.Aggarwal & Sons Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ
(BANKING) 0344
#19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or liability' - Presumption is that cheque
was issued for discharge in whole or in part of a debt or liability - Accused can rebut the
presumption by proving otherwise. (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs B.D.Aggarwal & Sons
Ltd.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0344
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint case and police case over same
matter - Magistrate to stay complaint case and call for a report from police - S.210 Cr.P.C. is not
attracted where complaint is u/s 138 NI Act as cognizance of offence u/s 138 NI Act can only be
taken on a complaint filed by payee. (Peter Mathew Vs Betty John), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
634 (KERALA)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Averments in complaint that
cheque was issued by authorised signatory of Company at instruction of accused who were
incharge of day-to-day affairs of company and that they had taken a vital role in issuing cheque
- Held, no ground to quash the complaint. (Ashok Muthanna, Managing Director M/s Fidelity
Industries Ltd. Vs Wipro Finance Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC
78
#7: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of
complaint - Court is within its power to consider material which accused may produce even
before the commencement of trial to decide whether accused is to be discharged - Public
document and indisputable document can be looked into - Form 32 under Companies Act and
Rules is a public document. (Ashok Muthanna, Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd. Vs
Wipro Finance Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78
#8: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Punishment - Appeal Suspension of sentence - Trial Court awarded sentence of three months simple imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.5, 000/- Suspension of sentence subject to execution of bond of Rs.60, 000/and deposit of Rs.60, 000/- - Order set aside - Conditions imposed should be commensurate with
or proportionate to the sentence imposed by the trial Court and the conditions imposed should
not be more onerous or stringent than the sentence imposed by the trial Court and the same
should be just and reasonable and in accordance with natural justice - Conditions imposed being
unjust and unreasonable cannot be sustained. (Ravi Vs Aravindan), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
207 (KERALA)
#9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proceedings under Ss.420, 506 & 120-B IPC not
maintainable simultaneously with proceedings under S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act.
(Subhash Chandra Das Vs State & Anr.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 232 (RAJASTHAN)
#10: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - 'Request to make payment within a week
failing which the matter will be referred by us to our legal department' - Not a notice as
contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act - Complaint quashed. (Mayfair Knitting
Industries Limited, Chennai Vs G.P.Vijyakumara), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 288 (MADRAS)
#11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Complaint singed by the counsel but not by
the complainant - Returned - Complaint filed again when limitation had expired - Complaint not
to be dismissed as initial date of presentation is the criteria. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801
#12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 117-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation Drawee is entitled to compensation - Remedy of compensation is in addition to common law
remedy for recovery of amount covered by cheque. (M/s A.M.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus
Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.)
#13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque if issued to cheat - Prosecution u/s 138 NI
Act and also under S.420 IPC can be launched - Section 138 NI Act is not introduced in lieu of
S.420 IPC. (M/s OPTS Marketing Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of A.P.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 326
(A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0628 : 2001(1) ANDH LD (CRI) 312 : 2001 CRI LJ 1489
#14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Intimation from bank regarding
dishonour of cheque received on 22.4.1998 - Period of 15 days to send demand notice to drawer
of cheque will begin from 23.4.1998. (Rajeev Indani Vs D.Veerendra Haggade), 2001(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 586 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0075
#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Legally enforceable debt - Pleadings - An
assertion in the complaint reading 'Towards the part satisfaction of the business debt the
accused issued a cheque bearing No....' - Held, from the averments in the complaint, it cannot
be held that there is no assertion that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of
legally enforceable debt. (M/s. T.M.T.(India) Limited. Vs M/s.Parameswara Traders), 2001(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 511 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0758
#16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused informing complainant before
presentation of cheque that amount mentioned in cheque does not represent the correct
quantum of liability of the accused and that a fresh cheque can be issued based on correct
ascertainment of accounts and advising him not to present the cheque - Held, such a letter does
not constitute any defence to the charge u/s 138 of the Act. (M/s. T.M.T.(India) Limited. Vs
M/s.Parameswara Traders), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 511 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ
(BANKING) 0758
#17: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Conviction - Revision - Entire payment tendered
and accepted during pendency of revision - As payment has been accepted and the offence
being compoundable as such conviction and setence set aside. (M/s Narindera Textile Vs
Girdhari Lal Bansal), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (P&H) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0525
#18: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Jurisdiction - It can either
be at the place where the drawer resides or at the place where the payee resides or at the place
where either of them carries on business. (Ramesh Gattani Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.),
2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN)
#19: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Firm in whose favour cheque was
issued situated at place `K' - Firm had also an account at place `J' - Cheque deposited at place
`J' and dishonoured - Cheque was issued in the name of the firm at place `K' - Goods were sent
from place `K' to place `J' - Notice issued from place `J' on behalf of the firm of place `K' Complaint filed at place `K' - Held, Court at place `K' has jurisdiction to try the case. (Ramesh
Gattani Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN)
#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - Becomes a cheque on the
date which is written thereon - Six months period has to be reckoned from the date mentioned
on the face of the cheque and not any earlier date on which the cheque was made over by the
drawer to the drawee. (Ashok Yeshwant Badave Vs Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar & Anr.),
2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (S.C.) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 249 (S.C.) : 2001 ISJ
(BANKING) 0375 : 2001(3) SCC 726
#21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque amount Rs.9972/- - Notice for payment
of Rs.3871/- Held, the payee or the holder in due course must demand payment of the amount
covered by the cheque - If the demand is for a lesser amount or an higher amount not covered
by the cheque then the prosecution must fail as the statutory requirement of the provision is not
fulfilled. (M/s.Yankay Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs M/s.Citi Bank), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 561 (A.P.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0366 : 2001(3) REC CRI R 217 : 2001(1) ALT(CRI.)
411 : 2001(2) L.S. 71
#22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque amount Rs.9972/- - Notice for payment
of Rs.3871/- - Typographical mistake - Offence under Section 138 'being a technical offence' all
the technical formalities as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act must be complied with.
(M/s.Yankay Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs M/s.Citi Bank), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 561
(A.P.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0366 : 2001(3) REC CRI R 217 : 2001(1) ALT(CRI.) 411 : 2001(2)
L.S. 71
#23: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice sent - On request of
accused cheque against presented and again dishonoured - Notice sent again - Complaint on
the basis of second notice - Barred by limitation - Complaint should have been filed on failure to
make payment on issuance of first notice. (Pradyut Kumar Mohanty Vs Dilip Singh Meheta),
2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (ORISSA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0355
#24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Power of attorney holder - Duly constituted
power of attorney can file complaint - There is no specific bar under the provisions of S.142 of
the Act for filing a complaint by the special power of attorney. (Rajeev Indani Vs D.Veerendra
Haggade), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0075
#25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint by Recovery Manager
who held special power of attorney from Managing Director - No illegality in filing the complaint
- Even in the absence of the minutes of the Board, the Special Power of Attorney executed by
the Chairman and Managing Director is sufficient to authorise Recovery Manager to launch the
prosecution. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 318 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801
#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence sprouted from
different cheques filed at two different places - Parties same - Offence is of the same nature -
Transfer of complaint from one place to another place ordered in the interest of justice and also
for the convenience of conducting the trial and disposal of all the cases. (M/s Ayyannar
Agencies and Anr. Vs Sri Vishnu Cement Limited & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.C.)
#2: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pleader - Includes any person appointed with
permission of Court to act in such proceedings. (S.Manian Vs P.M.Nachimuthu), 2001(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 544 (MADRAS)
#3: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by Power of
Attorney holder - Power document not presented initially - Court taking cognizance of complaint
- It is illegal, but does not vitiates the proceedings - Illegality is curable u/s 460(e) Cr.P.C.
(S.Manian Vs P.M.Nachimuthu), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 544 (MADRAS)
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Withdrawal of complaint Taking coercive steps against the accused after the complainant submits application for
withdrawal of complaint on complaint's continuous absence is an abuse of the process of Court.
(Biju Thomas Vs Devaki Amma), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (KERALA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING)
0317
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Withdrawal of complaint - Only option available
to the Court is either to grant sanction to withdraw from the prosecution or to acquit accused
under S.256 (1) Cr.P.C. (Biju Thomas Vs Devaki Amma), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 585
(KERALA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0317
#6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Person who was in charge of
and was responsible to the Company for conduct of business of Company is liable to be
proceeded against - Other Directors can be proceeded against only if it is specifically alleged in
complaint that they too participated in commission of offence - Cognizance taken against other
Directors in absence of specific allegation against them, is liable to be quashed. (Tiruchandoor
Muruhan Spinning Mills (Private) Limited & Ors. Vs Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton & General
Merchants), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA)
#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 10 Cheques dishonoured - Two notices each
covering five cheques served on two different days and single complaint filed - Single cause of
action arose, not when cheques were dishonoured but on service of notice and on failure to
make payment - Single complaint cannot be said to be bad in law - Procedural provision of S.219
of Cr.P.C. held is not applicable to proceedings under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Single trial is in fact advantageous to accused. (Tiruchandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills (Private)
Limited & Ors. Vs Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton & General Merchants), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 592 (KARNATAKA)
#8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Conviction - Appeal against - Compounding of
offence - Parties entering into compromise - Accused paid the amount of cheque - Permission
accorded to compound the offence. (M.L.Gandhi Vs State), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 604
(P&H)
#9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Civil suit as well as complaint u/s 138 filed - Civil
suit decreed in favour of drawee - No ground to quash criminal proceedings which have to
continue to its logical end. (N.K.Gupta Vs Vijay Kumar Madan), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 626
(P&H) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0462
#10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand not only of cheque amount but
also of other amounts and interest - Notice is not invalid for inclusion of such amounts in
demand, if amounts are indicated separately - If accused has paid amount of only dishonoured
cheque, he is deemed to have complied with notice. (T.M.Jakkanna alias Tippanna Mallappa
Jakkannavar & Anr. Vs Rajalaxmi Traders), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 635 (KARNATAKA)
#11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - List of prosecution witnesses - Issue of process
before filing list of witnesses - Omission does not vitiate proceedings nor does it invalidate order
of issue of summons - Omission is curable by producing list to accused before evidence is taken
- If list of witnesses is not filed by complainant, it may mean there is no witness to be examined
on his behalf - If Complainant makes an application with list of witnesses subsequently showing
sufficient cause for non-filing of list alongwith complaint, Court in its discretion may allow it.
(T.M.Jakkanna alias Tippanna Mallappa Jakkannavar & Anr. Vs Rajalaxmi Traders), 2001(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 635 (KARNATAKA)
#12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Compounding of offence - Trial Court convicted
accused - During pendency of appeal parties arriving at settlement - Accused depositing amount
of cheque before Appellate Court - Complainant undertook that he will not press for conviction
and sentence - Appellate Court to consider subsequent events and pass orders according to law
- Appellate Court will consider whether conviction is to be maintained or an order of imposition
of fine is to be passed. (M/s Cranex Ltd. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Ltd.), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 540 (S.C.) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 183 (S.C.) : 2000(2) ALT 275 (SC) : 2000(7)
SCC 388 : 2000(4) REC CRI R 357 : AIR 2000 SC 3145
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - No form is prescribed of the notice - The
essential elements of the notice are (1) it has to be in writing, (2) it has to be given within 15
days of receipt of information regarding return of cheque unpaid and (3) demand for payment of
the amount of the cheque has to be made in the notice. (Hammanna S.Nayak Vs Vijay Kumar
Kalani & Anr.), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING)
0649
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint filed before
Court which had no territorial jurisdiction but was otherwise competent to take cognizance of
offence - Complaint returned for presentation before proper Court - Complaint represented
before proper Court - Delay in representing the complaint will not make the complaint barred by
time. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.201). (Abdul Azeez Nazeem Vs Radhakrishnan),
2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (KERALA)
#15: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Period of 15 days envisaged in S.138 (c)
- Begins to run on the day next to the day on which the service of notice has been effected.
(Patel Dinneshkumar Shivram Somdas Vs Patel Keshavlal Mohanlal), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 7 (GUJARAT)
#16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by unregistered
Partnership firm - Complaint is not maintainable. (Partnership Act, 1932, S.69). (Amit Desai Vs
M/s Shine Enterprises), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 60 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0547 : 2000
CRI. LJ 2386 (AP)
#17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Company
a Sick Industrial Unit - It is not a ground to quash complaint u/ss 138, 141 of Negotiable
Instruments Act. (Thapar Agro Mills Vs Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation),
2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 74 (P&H)
#18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - A fact to be
decided at the time of trial - Proceedings cannot be quashed at the initial stage. (Meenakshi
Gupta Vs Smt.Sushma Kedia), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING)
0668
#19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - FIR and complaint case over same subject matter
- Both cases should be tried and disposed of separately by the same Judicial Officer and
disposed of simultaneously, but by different judgments. (Meenakshi Gupta Vs Smt.Sushma
Kedia), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0668
#20: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Not disclosing
any offence - Accused can approach High Court for quashing of criminal proceedings at any
stage when no offence is made out - High Court need not direct the parties to file proper
application before Magistrate before discharge. (Shanku Concretes Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of
Gujarat & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (GUJARAT)
#21: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Any debt or other liability' - Complainant giving
a debt of Rs.15 lacs to accused - Accused issued seven post dated cheques in discharge of debt
- Dishonour of cheques - No criminal offence under S.138 is made out - Cheques were issued as
collateral security by accused and not to discharge any existing debt - Case is of civil nature.
(Shanku Concretes Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 126
(GUJARAT)
Chandran), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (MADRAS) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPL.) ISJ (BANKING)
0228
#7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Date of delivery of notice - Not
mentioned in complaint - Not a ground for rejection of complaint - It is a question of fact to be
decided by trial Court. (Swaran Munjal Vs State of U.P.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 332
(ALLAHABAD)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pre mature complaint - It can either await
maturity or be returned to the complainant for filing later - Complaint cannot be dismissed for
the reason that it was presented at an earlier date and it also does not confer any right upon
the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed - A case can
be said to be instituted in a Court only when the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged
therein. (Narsingh Das Tapadia Vs Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
408 (S.C.) : 2000(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 129 (S.C.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0690 : (2000) 10 JT
(SC) 141 : AIR 2000 SC 2946 : 2000(4) RCR 039 : 2000(7) SCC 183 : 2000(3) MPLJ 531
#9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Trial Court
awarding six months simple imprisonment - Accused paying amount due under cheque and
interest thereon pending appeal - Held, no useful purpose would be served by sending accused
back to jail - Imposing penalty of fine would meet ends of justice - Sentence substituted with
fine of Rs.5, 000/-. (Narsingh Das Tapadia Vs Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 408 (S.C.) : 2000(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 129 (S.C.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0690 :
(2000) 10 JT (SC) 141 : AIR 2000 SC 2946 : 2000(4) RCR 039 : 2000(7) SCC 183 : 2000(3) MPLJ
531
#10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Document sought to be produced by recalling a
witness - Authority to file complaint by a resolution of Board of Directors - However, alongwith
complaint another document filed - Relevant document mentioned in the list of documents filed
alongwith complaint - Refusal of lower Court to recall witness for marking the correct document,
not proper - The principle that prosecution cannot be permitted at a later stage during the trial
to fill up the gaps in the prosecution case does not apply to a case where an honest mistake
made at an earlier stage is sought to be corrected - Court is not to punish the parties for the
mistake committed by them or their counsel - Witness to be recalled for producing the
document - Petition allowed. (M/s Recon Agrotech Limited Vs M/s Vijaya Sales Corporation &
Ors.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 427 (A.P.)
#11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque drawn in the name of 'Indusind Bank
Limited A/c Credential Finance Limited or Bearer' - Held, if Banker's name is shown in the
Payee's column before the account holders name and it is crossed specially in conformity with
S.124 of the Act, then it can be treated as cross cheque specially authorising the bank to collect
it on behalf of the account holder and remit to his account. (M/s Credential Finance Ltd. Vs State
of Maharashtra), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING)
0643
#12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Acquittal by trial Court - Sessions Judge in
revision convicted accused - Held, only an appeal against order of acquittal lies to High Court No revision against such order is entertainable - Order passed by Sessions Judge is without
jurisdiction - The same set aside. (T.V.Nagaraj Vs B.Anjanappa), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 290
(KARNATAKA)
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque drawn in the name of 'Indusind Bank
Limited A/c Credential Finance Limited or Bearer' - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint not
maintainable by bank - Bank was not the payee - Complaint is maintainable by petitioner who is
the payee. (M/s Credential Finance Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
458 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0643
#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Vicarious liability of Directors Directors are not liable for prosecution unless it is alleged in the complaint that they were in
charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business and that cheques were
issued with their consent and connivance - Directors are not vicariously liable for the alleged
offence committed by the Company. (K.Janakimanoharan & Anr. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex
Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.P.)
#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed
against Company, Managing Director, Two Executive Directors and one Director - Petitioner
alleged to have resigned from post of Director even before issuance of cheque - However,
complaint states that Managing Director, Two Executive Directors and one Director are in-charge
of and responsible to the company and looking after the day to day affairs of the company Disputed question of fact - To be decided at the trial - Not permissible to go into the questions
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. - Petition dismissed. (Rohinton Noria Vs M/s NCC Finance Ltd.), 2000(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 493 (A.P.)
#16: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Court has no power to impose default sentence
of imprisonment for non payment of compensation - Only recovery proceedings can be initiated.
(Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Padmanabhan), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ
(BANKING) 0577
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Appellate Court has power to award
compensation or fixing the quantum of compensation either by reversing or modifying the
sentence of the trial Court. (Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Padmanabhan), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
501 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0577
#18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Closure of account - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is
made out - Closure of account strengthens the intention of accused to cheat - Whether account
was closed with dishonest intention or otherwise can be looked into at trial stage. (Rajendra
Vasantrao Khode Vs Laxmikant Shantilal Choudhari), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 524 (BOMBAY)
: 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0461
#19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Premature complaint - High Court not to interfere
in writ jurisdiction - Accused to approach trial Magistrate to recall the process. (Rajendra
Vasantrao Khode Vs Laxmikant Shantilal Choudhari), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 524 (BOMBAY)
: 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0461
#20: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Payee or the holder in due course of the
cheque has to give a written notice in a correct address to the drawer of the cheque - Once this
legal obligation is discharged, his right to prosecute the offender is not curtailed if the notice
validly tendered was not received by the drawer of the cheque. (Biswaranjan Pattnaik Vs Teem
Finance Company Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (ORISSA) : (2000)18 OCR 398
#21: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent at the correct address - Received
back with endorsement 'No such addressee in B.29 Industrial Estate' - This endorsement alleged
to be obtained by gaining over the postal peon - In other words correctness of the address on
the envelope not disputed - Held, the question of gaining over the postal peon is a factual
allegation which has to be considered only at the time of trial by referring to the evidence Order of cognizance not liable to be disturbed on this ground. (Biswaranjan Pattnaik Vs Teem
Finance Company Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (ORISSA) : (2000)18 OCR 398
#22: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - One month - Computation - The date
on which the cause of action arose is to be excluded. (Biswaranjan Pattnaik Vs Teem Finance
Company Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (ORISSA) : (2000)18 OCR 398
#23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by an employee of
company in discharge of liability of Company - Cheque issued not on behalf of the company Dishonour of cheque - Company is not liable - Proceedings against the company quashed - Held,
under S.138 the person who is liable for dishonour of cheque will be the one who has drawn and
issued the cheque. (Janachaitanya Housing (P) Ltd. Vs P.Surya Kumari), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 555 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0216
#24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint against Directors of
company must contain factual foundation disclosing their liability - Mere whisper in complaint
suggesting their involvement - Not sufficient. (K.Janakimanoharan & Anr. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar
Complex Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.P.)
#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Main factors to maintain a
complaint are: (i) The cheque in question should have been issued in discharge of whole or in
part of a debt or liability; (ii) The cheque should be presented for payment within six months or
its specific period, whichever is earlier; (iii) The payee or holder should give notice of demand
within 15 days of received information of dishonour which may be due to insufficient funds or
the amount payable exceeds the arrangement; (iv) The drawer gets 15 days time after receipt
of the notice to make the payment and only if he fails to pay, he is liable to be prosecuted; (v)
Complaint can be made only by payee or the holder in due course within one month of the
arising of the cause of action. (M/s Credential Finance Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra), 2000(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0643
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Legally enforceable debt' - Loan advanced in the
year 1985 - Cheque issued in the year 1990 - By the time the cheque was issued, the debt was
time barred - Debt was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of the cheque - No
offence is made out on dishonour of cheque. (Girdhari Lal Rathi Vs P.T.V.Ramanujachari),
2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (A.P.) : 2000(2) RCR (CRL.) 0051 : 1997(2) CRIMES 658
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Non mention in complaint that notice has
been served - Complaint not maintainable. (M/s Shakti Travel & Tours Vs State of Bihar & Anr.),
2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 583 (S.C.) : 2000(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 370(1) (S.C.) : 2002(9)
SCC 415 : JT 2000(7) SC 563 : 2003(2) ISJ (BANKING) 0380 : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0555 : 2001 AIR
SCW 2307 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 465 : 2000(4) CRIMES 150 : 2003(SUPPL.) ACC 663 (SC)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint and sworn statement - Not to be read
disjunctively - Both supplement and complement each other - Cognizance of offence to be taken
if the allegation in the complaint and sworn statement together make out a case for the offence
alleged. (Pearl Food Products Vs V.K.Pareed Rawther), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 609
(KERALA)
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - Notice received by accused on
7.11.1998 - Cause of action to file complaint arose on 22.11.1998 - Complaint could be filed on
or before 22.12.1998 - Complaint filed on 6.1.1999 is beyond period of limitation - Complaint
dismissed. (Sunil Aggarwal Vs Rajwanti), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (P&H)
#5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint beyond period of limitation Complaint dismissed irrespective of the fact that it is filed u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act as
well as Ss.420, 467, 471, 470, 120-B IPC, as the summoning order is only u/s 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act - However, complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint under the
provisions of IPC, if so advised. (Sunil Aggarwal Vs Rajwanti), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 627
(P&H)
#6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Director of Company who issued cheque resigned
- Not a ground to quash complaint against him - The liability under the provision arises against a
person who signs or issues the cheque which is subsequently dishonoured - Veracity of the
averment will depend on the evidence produced at the trial. (Sunil Aggarwal Vs Rajwanti),
2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (P&H)
#7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Cause of action' - Cheque presented a number
of times and dishonoured - Held, cause of action arises only when notice under S.138 is served
upon drawer. (Shailesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 647
(ALLAHABAD)
#8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Rs.550/- costs of notice claimed besides cheque
amount - Amount of cheque clearly mentioned - Notice not invalid - Drawer could pay the
amount of cheque only. (Shailesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
647 (ALLAHABAD)
#9: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by Company - Dishonoured Complaint filed and summoning order issued - Later on Company declared sick under Sick
Industrial Companies Act - Held, it does not affect the proceedings - No ground to quash the
complaint. (Rom Industries Ltd. Vs State of M.P.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 664 (M.P.)
#10: JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (c) - Notice - Date of receipt - To be
clearly made out as without this it is not possible to reckon period of 15 days - Before an order
summoning an accused person is passed by the Magistrate, it has to be made out by the
complainant that the drawer has failed to make the payment to him within fifteen days of the
receipt of the notice. (Kumari Sunita Charak Vs Ajay Kumar Sharma), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 679 (J&K) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0567
#11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Security - Undated cheque issued as security Subsequently there was hire purchase agreement between accused and complainant - Accused
issued 36 fresh cheques - Default in payment of instalments - Complainant entered the date on
the undated cheque given to him earlier and presented the same to claim the amount - Held,
cheque worked out when fresh cheques were issued and that cheque cannot be made use of for
enforcement of subsequent hire purchase agreement. (M/s Adithya Alkaloids Ltd. Vs M/s NCC
Finance Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING)
0655 : 2001 CRI LJ 1585
#12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - The facts stated in
the complaint must disclose commission of an offence by each one of the accused - There must
be clear factual foundation laid in the complaint itself attracting the ingredients of S.138 of the
Act against every person arrayed as an accused in the complaint - Allegations made in the
complaint cannot be read along with the sworn statement recorded at the time of taking the
complaint on file and the allied document to find out whether any prima facie case is made out
against the accused for the alleged offence - The sworn statement and statements recorded on
oath by the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance of an offence on complaint do not form
an integral part of the complaint. (K.Janakimanoharan & Anr. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex
Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.P.)
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Branch Manager - Competent to file complaint Cheque issued and given to the Branch Manager for encashment - He is the holder in due
course - He presented the cheque for encashment on behalf of the principal company - Cheque
dishonoured - Held, Branch Manager is competent to file the complaint even without there being
any authorisation since he is responsible for all his acts on behalf of the company. (Bicycle
Manufacturing Corporation Vs Samrat Shipping Company Pvt.Ltd.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
34 (P&H) : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0539 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0220
#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - No amount of evidence can be looked into
without allegations made in the complaint. (Girdhari Lal Rathi Vs P.T.V.Ramanujachari), 2000(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (A.P.) : 2000(2) RCR (CRL.) 0051 : 1997(2) CRIMES 658
#15: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint against Directors,
Chairman, Manager etc. with clear averment in the complaint that they were responsible for non
payment of the amount after receipt of notice within statutory period - Complaint held,
maintainable and not liable to be quashed. (Natesha Singh Vs M/s Klen and Marshalls of
Manufacturers and Exporters Pvt.Ltd.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 98 (MADRAS) : 1996 - 99
(SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0616 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0295 : 1999 (4) RCR
(CRL.) 0031 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0538 : 2001(2) LW (CRI.) 611
#16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Received back with postal endorsement
'Not claimed, Returned to sender' - No ground to quash proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the
ground that there was no service of notice - What is the purport of endorsement made on the
letter are questions of fact which have to be gone into during trial. (V.Venugopal Vs State of A.P.
& Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 105 (A.P.) : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0199
#17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Legally enforceable debt or liability' - Amount
payable in 1991 - Drawer issuing blank cheque in 1996 - Cheque dishonoured - By the time the
cheque was issued the amount payable was barred by limitation because no acknowledgment
was obtained before the expiry of 3 years - The debt was not legally enforceable at the time of
issuance of cheque and the accused cannot be punished u/s 138 of the Act. (Ashwini Satish
Bhat (Mrs.) Vs Jeevan Divakar Lolienkar), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (BOMBAY) : 2000 ISJ
(BANKING) 0444 : 2000(1) RCR(CRL.) 0829 : 1999(1) GLT 408 : 2000(5) BCR 9 : 1999(1) GOA LT
408 : 1999(2) BC 519
#18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent at the address given by drawer
himself - Notice received back with endorsement 'addressee not found' - Voters list produced by
drawer by way of rebuttal evidence to prove that he was not residing at given address but
elsewhere during relevant time - But neither the initials of the drawer nor the name of father of
the drawer is shown in the said entry - Voters list prepared a year earlier to date on which
drawer himself gave his address - Certified copy of decree obtained by drawer in suit filed by
him in same month in which notice in the present case was sent, shows that his address is same
to which notice was sent - Held, rebuttal evidence to prove non receipt of notice is liable to be
rejected - Notice is deemed to have been duly served - Conviction passed by trial Court is to be
upheld and confirmed. (A.Sathyanarayana Vs C.Nagaraj), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 153
(KARNATAKA)
#19: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Death prior to presentation of cheque Partnership firm - Cheque issued by one `V' on behalf of partnership firm - Death of `V' before
presentation of cheque - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint against wife and step son of `V' Held, cognizance cannot be taken against his legal heirs who were not partners or is a partner
or is incharge of the firm - Trial Court taking cognizance for the reason that legal heirs are
responsible for certain acts of their predecessor and they should also be held liable for criminal
action for facing trial and to undergo punishment - Complaint quashed. (Draupadi Devi alias
Maya Sippi Vs The State of Rajasthan), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 178 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0797 : 2000(4) REC(CRI.) 257
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Complaint filed in a Court having no
jurisdiction - Complaint returned for presenting in a Court having territorial jurisdiction Complaint represented before proper Court after expiry of period of limitation - Not barred by
limitation. (Nazeem Vs Radhakrishnan), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (KERALA)
#21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Amount of cheque already
paid - Specifically denied - Held, there is no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage.
(Potuganti Sreenivas Vs Public Prosecutor & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 226 (A.P.)
#22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Guarantee - Loan taken by son - Accused issued
cheque as guarantee on behalf of his son - Cheque dishonoured - Ledger account of drawer
showed that payment had been received by him - Proceedings quashed. (M.S.Harchand Vs Prem
Nath Dhawan), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 5 (P&H)
#23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 142, 138-- - Company - Complaint against
company and its Directors - Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of
the Directors - A-1 is company and is liable for prosecution - A-2 is the Chief Managing Director
and Signatory, hence liable for prosecution - A-3 is the Director and authorised signatory and is
thus liable for prosecution - A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to what
role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted - A-5
is a financial controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company, as such
he is liable for prosecution - Complaint against A-4 quashed. (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited,
Mumbai & Ors. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited, Hyderabad & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 265 (A.P.)
#24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Absence of
an averment in the complaint that the Managing Director is in-charge and responsible to the
Company - Accused described as Managing Director of the Company and the agreement, which
is the basis for the liability for payment of money on the part of the accused, describes him as
Managing Direction and even the reply notice sent by the Company, of which the accused is the
Managing Director shows that he has been the Managing Director of the Company - Mere
absence of averment in the complaint that the accused is in-charge of and responsible to the
Company does not justify quashing of the proceedings - Petition dismissed. (B.Manipal Reddy Vs
State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.P.)
#25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Normally a
Managing Director is supposed to be incharge of managing the Company and would obviously
be responsible to the Company. (B.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 194 (A.P.)
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 27-- - Notice issued and complaint filed by
Advocate on instructions given by Power of attorney holder of payee and not by payee himself Not illegal. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) :
2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059
#2: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - `Cause of action' - Cheque to be
presented within six months or its period of validity - Notice in writing to drawer to be given
within 15 days of the receipt of information from the bank - Payment to be made within 15 days
of the receipt of notice - On failure to make the payment cause of action will accrue to the
payee - Limitation will start running on expiry of 15 days of the receipt of notice - Limitation for
filing complaint is one month after expiry of the said period of 15 days. (Narinder Kumar Vs
Harnam Singh), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (H.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0358
#3: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint against Directors Averment in complaint that accused Nos.2 to 7 are its directors responsible for its day to day
functioning as such are jointly and severally liable to the dues of the complainant - No ground to
quash the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. (Sunil Sareen Vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 2000(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0725 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.)
0322
#4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sentence - Courts must take into consideration
all aspects of the case including the financial loss caused to the payee or holder in due course of
the cheque, the quantum of the amount involved in the cheque, status of the accused as well as
of the complainant, time and costs consumed in the litigation etc. (B.Harikrishna Vs Macro Links
Private Limited & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ
(BANKING) 0718
#5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sentence - Magistrate of First Class can impose
fine exceeding Rs.5, 000/-. (B.Harikrishna Vs Macro Links Private Limited & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 440 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0718
#6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Sentence - Amount involved in cheques
amounting to Rs.26, 501/- Trial Court imposed fine of Rs.10, 000/- - Cheques issued in the year
1990 - Almost 10 years have lapsed - Complainant must have suffered financially due to nonavailability of the amount - Respondents are the Company and its Managing Director - Held,
Court below was in error in imposing a meagre fine of Rs.10, 000/- for the problems created and
the loss suffered by the complainant - Taking into consideration all these aspects fine enhanced
to Rs.31500/- with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for four months in case of
non payment of fine. (B.Harikrishna Vs Macro Links Private Limited & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 440 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0718
#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Non impleading of the other
Directors of the Company - Contention to be raised at the trial only. (R.Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree
Balaji Cotton Industries), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ
(BANKING) 0249
#8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - If it discloses the amount for which the
cheque was issued and dishonoured, in addition to claims such as Bank charges and notice
charges - It cannot be said that the notice is vitiated especially when the respective claims are
severable. (R.Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree Balaji Cotton Industries), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0249
#9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque - Where the drawer gives blank
cheque, the drawee is entitled to fill it up and make a demand. (R.Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree
Balaji Cotton Industries), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ
(BANKING) 0249
#10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Promissory note in favour of daughter who
authorised father to collected the contents of the promissory note - Notice issued and thereafter
accused issued cheques in the name of father for the amount claimed - Cheques bounced on
presentation - Complaint - Contention that father is endorsee without consideration - But the
endorsement is 'to collect' and the same clothes the complainant with the authority to issue
notice and realise the amount by filing civil suits and also criminal complaint - Cheques were
issued in the name of father who became payee under the cheques - It cannot be said that
complainant has no authority to file the complaint. (Ch.Nageshwara Rao Vs B.V.Subbaiah &
Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 464 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0068
#11: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Legally enforceable debt' - Complainant had
been filling in the cheques in the name of the accused for different amount at his will and has
been dealing with the same in the manner he liked and it appears from the record that it was so
- Possibility of the cheque being filled in by the complainant as per his won volition for no lawful
consideration is a strong possibility which cannot be ruled out and moreso when this cheque is
not proved to have been issued in lieu of the alleged amount of Rs.30, 000/- borrowed by the
accused from the complainant - There is no subsisting debt or other liability established which
the accused was legally bound to discharge or was legally enforceable debt or other liability nor
it is proved that the cheque was issued with a view to discharge such debt/liability - Held,
accused is liable to be acquitted solely on this ground. (Narinder Kumar Vs Harnam Singh),
2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (H.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0358
#12: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 27-- - Power of attorney holder - Can file a
complaint. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) :
2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059
#13: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern Prosecution can be launched against proprietary concern by putting cause title as proprietary
concern represented by its proprietor. (N.Vaidyanathan Deepkika Milk Marketing Vs M/s Dodia
Dairy Limited), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 182 (MADRAS)
#14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand is to be of cheque amount Where in addition to payment of cheque amount drawee has also demanded payment of
balance of principal amount of loan and up-to-date interest and the amounts are severable,
notice cannot be held invalid. (Dr.K.G.Ramachandra Gupta & Anr. Vs Dr.G.Adinarayana), 2000(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (KARNATAKA)
#15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Separate demand must be made in
respect of each dishonoured cheque, by each of complainants - Common notice combining
claims of two complainants is not valid even though complainants are related to each other as
husband and wife - Where one combined notice of husband and wife was issued demanding
payment of total amount of loan including amounts of dishonoured cheques, it is to be held that
there is no proper notice of demand - Complaint not maintainable. (Dr.K.G.Ramachandra Gupta
& Anr. Vs Dr.G.Adinarayana), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (KARNATAKA)
#16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground
that payment had already been made to drawee through Bank Drafts before the bouncing of
cheques and drawee was called upon not to present the cheques - Held, these are questions of
fact - Complaint on this ground cannot be quashed - Accused directed to move an application
before Magistrate praying that no offence under S.138 of the act is made out on above facts Trial Court to go into these questions at the outset before issuance of notice as envisaged under
S.251 Cr.P.C. (M/s Shree Sarla Weavers Co-Operative Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Punjab State CoOperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (P&H)
#17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque presented for collection at
place `K' - Cheque dishonoured - Notice demanding the amount due issued from Registered
office of the company located at place `H' - Payment not made within the prescribed period of
15 days - Complaint filed in Court at place `H' - Proper - Complaint need not be filed at the place
of dishonour of cheque only. (Vasavi Fertilisers Dealer Vs Nagarjuna Fertilisers & Chemicals
Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 74 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0332 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.)
0130
#18: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Complaint filed by one of the partners - Death of partner - Proceedings would not abate - Some
other partner be brought on record to pursue the complaint. (Dior International (P) Ltd. Vs M/s
Raghuvansh Enterprises), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 80 (DELHI) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0071 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0644
#19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Received back with endorsement
'addressee out of station - door locked for 7 days' - There is presumption of deemed service of
notice. (M/s Aparana Agencies Vs P.Sudhakar Rao), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (A.P.) : 1999
- 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0509 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0179 : 1999
(4) RCR (CRL.) 0765
#20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Managing Director of the Company
convicted under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - A case under Ss.420, 471, 467 IPC also
registered against the Managing Director and two Directors of the accused company on the
ground that they forged a receipt of Rs.40 lacs in token of having made the payment to
Complainant - As two Directors are women and not convicted u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act as such equity demands that anticipatory bail should be allowed to them - Anticipatory bail
also allowed to Managing Director till decision of appeal filed by him against conviction u/s 138
of the Act. (Pawan Sachdeva Vs State (U.T., Chandigarh)), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104
(P&H) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0077 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0642
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - When a cheque is issued as a security, no
complaint lies under S.138 of the Act. (Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 114 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0229 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0323
#22: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Petitioner already
resigned at the relevant time - Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies shows that the
petitioner has resigned from the said post of the Company w.e.f. 19.1.1991 - Complainant
placed on record a copy of the Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies showing that
the petitioner remained Director of the said Company upto 9.7.1997 - Both these forms have
been issued by the Registrar of Companies - It is a disputed question of fact - Can only be
decided at the trial. (B.C.Sharma Vs M/s Ashok Kumar Pradeep Kumar), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 123 (DELHI) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0807 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0309
#23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused purchased Sun Flower Seeds and issued
cheque of Rs.2.50 lacs - Dishonour of cheques - Complaint under S.138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act - Sanction of Market Committee under S.84 of Agricultural Produce Marketing
Act is not required - Sanction is only required when there is dispute of civil nature with regard to
purchase, weight, payment etc. between the parties. (M/s S.B.Nagaraj & Co. Vs M/s Sri Ganesh
Oil Mill), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 147 (KARNATAKA) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0489 :
2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0076 : ILR 1999 KARNATKA 4020
#24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Loan taken and cheque issued - Cheque
dishonoured - Complaint lodged alleging that accused have committed an offence under S.420
r/w S.107 IPC and S.138 Negotiable Instruments Act - Petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the
FIR on the contention that it was a commercial transaction - Held, contention not tenable - In
fact many a cheating were committed in course of commercial and money transactions. (Yada
Anjaneyulu Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 533 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.)
ISJ (BANKING) 0019
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Under liquidation and Official
Liquidator appointed - Cheque issued by Company and signed by Managing Director - No claim
made against assets of the company - Criminal proceedings cannot be stayed under S.446 of
the Companies Act - S.446 of the Companies Act is not attracted in criminal proceedings where
the assets of the company are not involved and the proceedings pending against the accused
were only in respect of the commission of the offence and the punishment thereon. (Jose
Antony Vs Official Liquidator), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.)
ISJ (BANKING) 0221 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0502
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Mens rea - For committing an offence under
S.138 of the Act mens rea is not an essential ingredient. (Mahendra A.Dadia Vs State of
Maharasthra), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(BOMBAY) 0433 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0133 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4361 : 1999 (5) BCR 0124 :
1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0351
#2: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Vicarious
liability - Complaint against Company, its Chairman, Managing Director, nine Directors and three
officers of the Company - Complaint against Chairman and others quashed - Nothing on record
to show that there was any act committed by them to draw the inference that they were
vicariously liable - As regards Managing Director it could safely be inferred from his duties that
he was vicariously liable for the offence. (FMI Investments Pvt.Ltd. Vs State), 2000(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0652 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0013 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0269
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cause of action - Arises only once - Complaint
filed after issuing a second notice and after 45 days of receipt of the first notice by the drawer Complaint is not maintainable. (Adril D' Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 299 (KERALA)
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint under S.142 - Examination of the
presumption under Section 139 must follow - Merely because the drawer issues a notice to the
drawee or to the Bank for stoppage of the payment it will not preclude an action under Section
138 of the Act by the drawee or the holder of a cheque in due course. (Mahendra A.Dadia Vs
State of Maharasthra), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0433 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0133 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4361 : 1999 (5)
BCR 0124 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0351
#14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued as a security to make payment of
the liability of another company - Even if the cheque is issued as security or in discharge of
liability of any other person, it amounts to a liability which has been undertaken by the drawer
of the cheque. (M/s Mahaplasto Ltd. Vs M/s Bushan Steels and Strips Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 580 (P&H) : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0557
#15: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Insolvency petition - Mere presentation or
pendency of insolvency petition does not disentitle the complainant to approach the Criminal
Court seeking for punishment to the accused for the offence already committed. (C.T.Thangaraj
Vs Murugesan), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 463 (MADRAS) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING)
0240 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0767 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0120 : 1999 CRL.
L.J. 3436
#16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - One `A' owed legal
liability towards `B' - One `D' owed legal liability towards `A' - `D' drawing cheques in favour of
`B' in discharge of his own liability towards `A' - Cheque dishonoured - No criminal offence
against `A' and `D' is made out - `D' has no legal liability towards `B' - `A' is not liable as
cheques were not issued by him - Criminal complaint quashed - Further held for constituting
offence under S.138 cheques should have been drawn by drawer having legally enforceable
liability in favour of payee and further cheques should have been drawn on an account
maintained by drawer. (Kalyani Refineries Ltd. Vs Banaras State Bank Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0471 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0578
#17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - Means a legally
enforceable debt or other liability. (Kalyani Refineries Ltd. Vs Banaras State Bank Ltd.), 2000(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0471 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0578
#18: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Trial
commenced and one P.W. examined - Trial Court cannot discharge the accused under Section
245 Cr.P.C. once trial has commenced. (P.Ganapathy Vs A.Marimuthu Pillay), 2000(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 540 (MADRAS) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0094 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(MADRAS) 0775 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0124 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 2933
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Dishonour of cheque - Notice sent but no
complaint filed - Complaint filed after third dishonour of cheque - Complaint quashed - Cause of
action arises only once when first notice is sent. (Adril D'Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd.),
2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 548 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0138 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.)
0375
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Drawee is required to send 15 days
notice to drawer demanding payment - Complaint should be filed within one month of receipt of
notice by the drawer - Starting date of period of 15 days is the date of receipt of notice by the
drawer. (Adril D'Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 548
(KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0138 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0375
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - No form of notice is prescribed - Notice
should only be in writing. (Adril D'Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 548 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0138 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0375
#22: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Loan taken of Rs.30 lakhs and promissory
note executed - Amount not paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding - On
repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards discharge of loan amount - Cheque
dishonoured - Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only as a
security and that on the date of issuance of cheque, there was no existing liability - It is for
accused to rebut presumption contained in S.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Alsa
Constructions and Housing Limited Vs M.Mal Reddy), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568
(MADRAS)
State of Rajasthan), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 695 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0535 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0058
#8: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Sole proprietorship concern - Complaint
filed against firm instead of proprietor - Sole proprietorship concern is not a judicial person to
come under Criminal Prosecution - Receipt of notice by any other person may not be acceptable
and valid acknowledgment of notice - Complaint is liable to be quashed. (Anas Industries Vs
Suresh Bafna), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 701 (MADRAS) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(MADRAS) 0532 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0486
#9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Specific allegations in the complaint
against A-2 to A-6 that they were Directors at the time of issuing cheques - The fact that they
ceased to be Directors is a matter to be decided during trial - The accused have to undergo trial
and prove the documents on which they rely upon, therefore they are not entitled to be
discharged. (Bharat Kumar Modi & Ors. Vs M/s Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Ors.), 1999
(SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 36 (A.P.)
#10: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Complaint against
accused only without impleading the firm - Complaint is maintainable - Unless it is established
that the firm alone was liable to discharge the liability, the complainant could not be compelled
to add the firm as accused. (Saravanan Vs G.Sampath), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 44
(MADRAS)
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Company
cannot avert its liability on mere ground that winding up petition was presented prior to
company being called upon to pay amount of cheque. (Pankaj Mehra Vs State of Maharashtra &
Ors.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 591 (S.C.) : 2000(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 323 (S.C.) : 2000
ISJ (BANKING) 0256 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0819 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0602 :
2000(2) SCC 756
#12: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pleadings - `Payment stopped' - There is no
necessity of having an averment in the complaint that cheques were dishonoured for the reason
that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the respondent. (K.I.George Vs
Muhammed Master), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (KERALA)
#13: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice not given - Cheque
presented again and dishonoured - Notice given only after cheque dishonoured second time Complaint validly instituted. (DSA Engineers (Bombay) & Ors. Vs M/s U.E.M. India Pvt.Ltd. &
Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI)
#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - No liability - It is contented that 9 cheques in all
were given and whole of the amount was then paid and the receipts have been issued by the
Company - This is a matter which is purely factual and on this ground the complaint cannot be
quashed. (PGM Spinning Ltd. & Ors. Vs A.P.S.F.Corporation and State), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL
COURT CASES 152 (A.P.)
#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Year and month - Be reckoned according to
British Calendar - 30 days not to be taken as equivalent to a month - In the instant case notice
issued on 30.12.1996 received by petitioners on 31.12.1996 - Notice period of 15 days ends on
15.1.1997 - Period of one month for making complaint starts from the next day i.e. 16.1.1997 Complaint even if filed on 15.2.1997 would be within time - Complaint filed on 14.2.1997 is not
barred by time. (PGM Spinning Ltd. & Ors. Vs A.P.S.F.Corporation and State), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL
COURT CASES 152 (A.P.)
#16: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Matter alleged to be compromised - Amount
alleged, admitted to be received, but explained that it was only partial payment of debt Complainant not prepared to withdraw case - Case not compoundable - No error on part of
Magistrate in proceeding with case - Accused can resummon complainant for cross-examining
him on point of compromise and amount paid. (V.M.Chopra Vs State & Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL
COURT CASES 154 (RAJASTHAN)
#17: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by Company Dishonour of cheque - Prosecution of signatory of the cheque without impleading the Company -
No ground to quash the proceedings. (Rabin Jhunjhunwala Vs L.K.Mohta), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL
COURT CASES 155 (CALCUTTA)
#18: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Seven days notice given demanding
payment but complaint filed after expiry of 15 days - No ground to quash the complaint - Notice
is valid. (Rabin Jhunjhunwala Vs L.K.Mohta), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 155 (CALCUTTA)
#19: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn on Calcutta Bank Complaint filed at place `S' where complainant resides - Held, Court at place `S' has the
jurisdiction. (Rabin Jhunjhunwala Vs L.K.Mohta), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 155
(CALCUTTA)
#20: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Insolvent - Accused declared insolvent by
Insolvency Court - Complaint u/s 138 against accused is maintainable - There is no bar in
Negotiable Instruments Act or Insolvency Act - Provisions in Insolvency Act apply only to civil
proceedings and as against property of insolvent and not with regard to criminal proceedings.
(Bharath N.Mehtha Vs Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 227
(MADRAS)
#21: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cause of action - Arises on expiry of 15 days from
date of receipt of notice by the accused. (Bharath N.Mehtha Vs Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd.),
1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 227 (MADRAS)
#22: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Stay of criminal case during pendency of civil suit
- Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed - Prior to that accused filed a civil suit for recovery of
their dues against the complainant and the matter involved in the civil suit and the complaint is
similar - Trial of criminal cases cannot be stayed only for the reason that a civil suit involving
identical dispute is pending between the parties - As no special circumstances exist in the
instant case as such no valid ground exist for stay of criminal proceedings. (DSA Engineers
(Bombay) & Ors. Vs M/s U.E.M. India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247
(DELHI)
#23: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Stop payment - Even if a cheque is dishonoured
because of `Stop payment' instructions to the Bank, still S.138 gets attracted. (DSA Engineers
(Bombay) & Ors. Vs M/s U.E.M. India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247
(DELHI)
#24: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Compromise - Accused agreeing to pay the
amount with interest - Offence under S.138 is not wiped out once it was complete - The
complainant may withdraw the complaint in view of the compromise or the Court may show
leniency but it cannot be stated that the offence was not made out. (Marimuthu Vs Arumugam),
1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 101 (MADRAS)
#25: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 142, 138-- - Complaint - Must be in writing and signed
by the complainant. (M.A.Abdul Khuthoos Vs M/s Ganesh & Coy Oil Mills), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 619 (MADRAS)
#1: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Contention of accused that
he had not taken any loan and cheque in fact was stolen - No intimation to the Bank to stop the
payment of the cheque as it had been stolen - Record of theft thus not relevant for trial of
offence under S.138 of the Act. (Mrs.Saraswathi Vs V.Balakrishnan), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT
CASES 594 (MADRAS)
#2: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Insolvency proceedings - Dishonour of cheque During pendency of insolvency proceedings accused is not absolved from criminal liability under
S.138 even if the accused was declared insolvent - Protection given under Sections 29 and 31 of
Provincial Insolvency Act is applicable to debtor in respect of civil detention and civil arrest
alone. (B.Kannan Vs B.C.Santhanam), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 260 (MADRAS)
#3: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - There is no provision for the summons cases to
file an application for discharge under S.245 Cr.P.C. that too, after all the witnesses have been
examined. (B.Kannan Vs B.C.Santhanam), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 260 (MADRAS)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque presented to payee's bank within six
months but cheque presented to drawer's bank after six months - Cheque can be presented
within six months either with the payee's bank or drawer's bank. (ABK Publications Ltd. Vs Tamil
Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 279 (MADRAS) : 1999 (3) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0329 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0734 : 1999(3) CRIMES 97 : 1999 CRL.
LJ 2741
#25: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Legal debt and liability - Agreement to sell Accused making part payment and issuing cheques of balance consideration - Accused put in
possession of land and given Power of Attorney to do all acts and deeds in respect of land - Sale
transaction not completed - Dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds - Accused guilty of
offence under S.138 - Act of complainant amounted to sale of property within meaning of S.54
of Transfer of Property act - It would be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of
liability and not as security. (V.Sampath Vs Praveen Chandra V.Shah), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL
COURT CASES 468 (MADRAS)
#1: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Notice sent to partnership
firm - Complaint against partnership firm and its two partners - Notice need not to be given to
each and every partner - Every person who is incharge of and is responsible to the firm for the
conduct of the business of the firm shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be
liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly - No illegality in summoning the
partners as it is asserted in the complaint that both the partners are responsible for the conduct
of the business of the firm. (Jain Associates Vs Deepak Chawdhery & Co.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 400 (DELHI) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0723 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(DELHI) 0391 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0645 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0250 : 1999(4)
AD (DELHI) 385 : 80(1999) DLT 654 : 1999(2) JCC 383 : 2000(2) CRIMES 374
#2: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Interest demanded - Demand notice not
invalid merely because the interest amount has been added. (P.V.R.S.Manikumar Vs Krishna
Reddy), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS)
0503 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0034 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0182
#3: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Mentioning of 15 days' time for payment
is not necessary in the notice, as it is not contemplated in the Section. (P.V.R.S.Manikumar Vs
Krishna Reddy), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(MADRAS) 0503 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0034 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0182
#4: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - If complaint is filed before
the expiry of the fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice, then, the complaint would
become premature and the proceedings would be vitiated. (P.V.R.S.Manikumar Vs Krishna
Reddy), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS)
0503 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0034 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0182
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation Starting point - The period of one month for filing the complaint has to be reckoned from the
date immediately following the date on which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of
the notice by the drawer expired. (Jossy Kondody Vs Chacko Thomas), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 366 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0048 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0466 : 1999 (3) KLT
0207 : 1999 (2) KLJ 0646
#6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint registered and
process issued - On complainant's absence Court dismissed complaint and discharged the
accused - Order passed by Magistrate must be construed as order of acquittal under S.256(1)
and not of discharge - In such case remedy is to file appeal under S.378(5). (Raja Vs State of
Maharashtra & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 369 (BOMBAY) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0353
#7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Interest claimed - Merely because
interest is claimed, notice is not bad - Accused could have paid cheque amount only, refusing
interest. (G.L.Modi & Anr. Vs Xedd Finance and Investments Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.), 1999(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 372 (A.P.) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0355 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0170
: 1998 (2) ALD (CRL.) 0099 : 1998 (4) ALD 0365
#8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Unless there are allegations in the
complaint that the Directors or partners of a company or firm are also incharge and responsible
for the management of the business of the company or firm they are not liable to be
prosecuted. (G.L.Modi & Anr. Vs Xedd Finance and Investments Pvt.Ltd. & Ors.), 1999(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 372 (A.P.) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0355 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0170
: 1998 (2) ALD (CRL.) 0099 : 1998 (4) ALD 0365
#9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Components of the offence are (1)
Drawing of the cheque (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank (3) Returning the cheque
unpaid by the drawee bank (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding
payment of the cheque amount (5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the
receipt of the notice - Complainant can choose any one of those Courts having jurisdiction over
any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was
done. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.)
: 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999)
17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI
LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 :
1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 :
1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558
#10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Judicial Magistrate of First Class trying a case
under S.138 cannot impose a fine exceeding Rs.5000/- - High Court while convicting accused in
the same case cannot impose fine exceeding the said limit - However, Magistrate can resort to
S.357(3) Cr.P.C. to alleviate the grievance of the complainant. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran
Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL
501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ
(BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT
(CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 :
1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR
452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - `Giving of notice' and `Receipt of notice'
- Giving of notice is not the same as receipt of notice - When notice is returned unclaimed by
sender it would amount to receipt of notice - In such a case reckoning of 15 days would start
running from date of return of notice. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.),
1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC
510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC
3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999
CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 :
1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR
(SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558
#12: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Debt or other liability - Presumption is rebuttable
- Accused seeking production of accounts in possession of complainant - S.311 Cr.P.C.
contemplates that the Court can summon any person as a witness or examine any person at
any stage of the proceedings - The accused would be in a position to examine the witness only if
the documents asked for in the petition are produced - Trial Court directed to permit the
accused to examine the witnesses and summon the documents. (Sri Murugan Agencies Vs M/s
Khaitan and Company), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (MADRAS) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0166 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0415 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0319
#13: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post as well as
Under Certificate of Posting (UPC) - Registered cover received back without any postal
endorsement - Notice sent through UPC not received back - There is presumption of service
under S.114 Illustration (b) of Evidence Act unless and until it is proved that the postal
communication was disrupted in any manner - This is a question which is to be decided after
recording evidence in the proceedings. (Evidence Act, 1872, S.114 Illustration (b). (Jain
Associates Vs Deepak Chawdhery & Co.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (DELHI) : 1996 - 99
(SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0723 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0391 : 1999 (3) RCR
(CRL.) 0645 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0250 : 1999(4) AD (DELHI) 385 : 80(1999) DLT
654 : 1999(2) JCC 383 : 2000(2) CRIMES 374
#14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cognizance of offence Limitation - Period of 30 days has been prescribed for filing the complaint in Court and not for
taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate. (M/s Nakoda Laminators Vs State of
Rajasthan), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2)
ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0364 :
1998 CRL. L.J. 3525
Managing Director of Company - No allegations in the complaint that Directors of the Company
were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of
the alleged commission of the offence - Vague allegations that cheques were issued with
consent, knowledge and connivance of Directors - Cannot be said that Directors were actually
incharge and responsible for conduct of business - Proceedings against Directors - Liable to be
quashed. (P.Ravinder Reddy Vs M/s NCC Finance Ltd.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (A.P.) :
1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0764 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0326 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0004
#24: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Sleeping partner - Nothing on
record to suggest that such partner was incharge of the business of the company or was in any
manner responsible for the conduct of business of company and there is no evidence to show
that such partner was responsible in any manner for the alleged offence - No ground to proceed
against such partner. (M/s Nakoda Laminators Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0364 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3525
#25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138, 118-- - Cheque - Signature on the cheque
admitted - Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the
date which the cheque bears - S.139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the
cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability - The burden is on the accused to
rebut the aforesaid presumption. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 :
1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC
3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999
CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 :
1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR
(SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558
#1: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - In the complaint it is not alleged that
accused 2 and 3 continued to be in service of the company - Not stated that they were in any
manner engaged in the administration and management of the company - There is nothing in
the complaint in rope in the 2nd accused. (M.Inbarajan & Anr. Vs Baladhandapani), 1999(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 176 (MADRAS)
#2: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing Contention of petitioner that payments were made towards the amount payable under cheques
- Held, it would be for the trial Court to decide the question of payment at appropriate stage in
accordance with law - Proceedings pending in trial Court cannot be quashed on this basis. (M/s
Nakoda Laminators Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999
ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ
0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0364 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3525
#3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice not issued within 15
days of the receipt of information from the Bank and drawer not afforded an opportunity to
make payment of the cheque - Continuance of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of the
Court. (Ganesh Das Vs Narendra Kumar), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (RAJASTHAN) : 2000
ISJ (BANKING) 0024 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0755 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.)
0115 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 3362
#4: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Presented to collecting bank on the last
day of six months - Reached paying bank late by 4 days i.e. after six months period was over Cheque became a stale cheque - Cheque is required to be presented at paying bank within six
months or period of validity which is earlier - Complaint quashed, petitioner discharged.
(Arunbhai Nilkanthrai Nanavati Vs Jayaben Prahladbhai), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 649
(GUJARAT) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0526 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (GUJARAT) 0627 : 1999
(4) RCR (CRL.) 0460 : 1999 (3) GLR 2096 : 1999(3) CRIMES 252 : 2000 CRI LJ 1152
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Insufficient funds - Proof It is sufficient to summon a copy of the relevant account - Unnecessary summoning of Bank
Managers deprecated. (Kamalam Vs State of Kerala), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 679 (KERALA)
: 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0365 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0005 : 1999 (3) KLT 0499
#6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post - Neither
unserved postal cover nor acknowledgment received back by sender - A copy of statutory notice
filed alongwith the complaint - Presumption is that the notice is deemed to have been served
but it is a rebuttable presumption - Complaint cannot be quashed for want of notice at this
stage. (G.S.Srikanth & Ors. Vs M/s Sri Lakshmi Financiers & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
711 (A.P.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0215 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0238 : 1999 (1)
CIVIL LJ 0782 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0411 : 1999 (98) COMP. CASES 0321 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0329
#7: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - Request to
present the cheque once again - Cheque represented - Cheque again dishonoured - Second
notice returned with an endorsement 'always absent' - Cause of action has arisen only on the
first notice. (M/s Abraham Chacko & Co. Vs Kalleppuram Metals), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 12
(KERALA)
#8: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Pleading - Absence of averment in
complaint that cheque was issued towards the discharge of whole or any part of debt or any
liability - Held, if the complaint and its accompaniments prima facie show the ingredients of
S.138 of the Act then the complaint cannot be thrown or quashed at the threshold. (Anchor
Capitals of India Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 16
(GUJARAT) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (GUJARAT) 0177 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0210 : 1998 (4)
RCR (CRL.) 0407 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0122 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0481 : 1998 (4)
CRIMES 0532
#9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued - Subsequently complainant
agreed to receive the amount in instalments - Dishonour of cheque - Held, no offence is made
out under S.138 of the Act as subsequent agreement replaced the cheque. (Voruganti China
Gopaiah Vs M/s Godavari Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (A.P.) :
1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0201
#10: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - An undated cheque handed over as security for
the purpose of the contract - Dishonour of cheque - Provisions of S.138 does not apply - There
was no debt or liability when cheque was handed over to the drawee. (M/s Balaji Seafoods
Exports (India) Ltd. Vs Mac Industries Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 109 (MADRAS) :
1999(1) REC CRI R 683 : 1999(1) BANKING CASES 0298 : 2000(1) BOM CLR 564 : 1999(2) CCR
0424 : 1999 (1) CTC 0006
#11: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - Means a legally
enforceable debt or liability. (M/s Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. Vs Mac Industries Ltd.),
1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 109 (MADRAS) : 1999(1) REC CRI R 683 : 1999(1) BANKING CASES
0298 : 2000(1) BOM CLR 564 : 1999(2) CCR 0424 : 1999 (1) CTC 0006
#12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Information
received from Bank on 9.3.1994 and on the same day notice issued - Drawer of the cheque can
make payment within a period of 15 days from date of service of notice - Drawer failed to make
payment upto 25.3.1994 - Cause of action accrued to drawee on 25.3.1994 - Complaint filed on
25.4.1994 - Held, complaint is within limitation. (M/s Nakoda Laminators Vs State of Rajasthan),
1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0364 : 1998 CRL.
L.J. 3525
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque drawn by company - No notice as
required given to company - Notice given to Director of the Company - Complaint under section
138 against company is not maintainable - However, it cannot be said that as complaint against
company for want of notice is not maintainable as such complaint against Director is also not
maintainable. (P.Rajarathinam Vs State of Maharashtra), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 166
(BOMBAY) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0132 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0514 : 1999
(5) BCR 0308
#14: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Non appearance of complainant Dismissal of complaint - Absence of petitioner neither deliberate nor wilful - Order of Magistrate
set aside - Magistrate has discretion to dismiss the complaint, but cannot exercise this power in
disposal oriented spirit and disposal oriented statistics. (Kumaresan Vs Girirajan), 1999(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 309 (MADRAS) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0014
#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant absent - Complaint dismissed in
default at early hours - Order of dismissal set aside - Magistrate ought to have waited for the
complainant. (Anil Bassi Vs Vishnu Dass), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 178 (P&H) : 1999 (1) RCR
(CRL.) 0838
#16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Computing period of
limitation - Day on which cause of action arises is to be excluded - In the instant case notice
served on accused on 29.9.1995 and complaint filed on 15.11.1995 - Held, complaint filed is
within time as 15 days notice period expired on 14th October and cause of action for filing
complaint would arise from 15th October as such 15th October is to be excluded for counting
the period of one month. (M/s Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s India Securities Ltd.), 1999(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 506 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING)
0761 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1)
BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J.
4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998 (2) KLT 0490 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1998 SC 3043 : 1998
(2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1999 SCC (CRI) 329 : 1999(3) SCC 1
#17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Condonation of delay - Complaint not filed within
prescribed period - Delay cannot be condoned u/s 5 of Limitation Act or S.473 Cr.P.C. Negotiable Instruments Act is a Special Law which prescribes a special procedure and limitation.
(Shri Vishnu Spinners Vs Sri Bhagyalakshmi Commercial Corporation), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 246 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0192 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0516 : 1999 (1) ALT
(CRL.) 0187
#18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I.
for six months and fine of Rs.5, 000/- ordered to be paid to the complainant - Sessions Judge
ordered the release of accused on Probation - Fine converted into Prosecution expenses as the
P.P. had also appeared - High Court modified order and Fine ordered to be paid to the
complainant as compensation. (Betco Chit Fund Vs Veekay Industries), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 292 (P&H) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0350 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0448
#19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence under S.138 is not
a cognizable offence - Police has no right to intervene so far as this offence is concerned. (Betco
Chit Fund Vs Veekay Industries), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (P&H) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0350 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0448
#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Notice - Sent by Fax - It
amounts to compliance with the legal requirement - Time limit for filing complaint would start
running on the date when the notice sent by Fax reaches the drawer of the cheque. (M/s SIL
Import, USA Vs M/s Exim Aides Silk Exporters, Bangalore), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 295
(S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 493 (S.C.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0432 :
1999(2) CTC 0354 : 1999(4) SCC 567 : 1999(2) REC CRI R 658 : (1999) 38 ALL CRI C 858 : AIR
1999 SC 1609 : 1999(2) KLT 275
#21: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint
sought on the ground that cheque was not issued by him - This is purely a question of fact - No
ground to quash the proceedings. (Devendra Kumar Rai Vs Ram Gopal Rai), 1999(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 299 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0139 : 1999(2)
RCR (CRL.) 0217 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0583 : 1999 CRI LJ 1349
#22: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - 30 days notice demanding payment
instead of 15 days - Notice is not invalid - It is open for a party to given more time. (Devendra
Kumar Rai Vs Ram Gopal Rai), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999(2) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0139 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL.) 0217 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES
0583 : 1999 CRI LJ 1349
#23: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Legal liability - Debt due to father - Cheque given
in favour of son - Cheque dishonoured - Offence u/s 138 is made out. (Devendra Kumar Rai Vs
Ram Gopal Rai), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL
LR (ALLAHABAD) 0139 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL.) 0217 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0583 : 1999 CRI LJ
1349
#24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Accused No.2 is the Director,
Accused No.3 is the Managing Director and Accused No.4 is an Executive Director of the
Company - It is stated in the complaint that the offence had been committed with the consent
and connivance of the accused Nos.2 to 4 - Held, it is sufficient to make an allegation in the
complaint with regard to the liability of the accused - Whether they are actually liable or not will
have to be considered through evidence. (Girish K.Bhandari & Anr. Vs Lakshmi Finance &
Industrial Corp. Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING)
0049 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0309 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0029 : 1999 (97)
COMP. CASES 0092 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0460
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Failure to mention the names of the witnesses
and the place and date of transaction in the complaint - Not fatal. (Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, S.204(2). (Augusty Vs Rajan), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 117 (KERALA) : 1999(4) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0600 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0450
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Under S.138 of the Act no mode is
prescribed for service of notice - It is sufficient that the notice is served on the accused - In the
instant case complainant stating that notice sent as per registered post as well as through
certificate of posting and notice sent as per certificate of posting received by the accused - This
is a question of fact whether the notice has been received by the accused or not - On this
ground complaint cannot be quashed. (Y.Srinivasa Reddy & Anr. Vs A.V.Aruna Devi & Anr.),
1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 465 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0671 : 1999 (3)
RCR (CRL.) 0135 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0581
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheques issued in discharge of a liability i.e.
payment of monthly rentals - Cheques dishonoured for want of sufficient funds - Complaint
cannot be thrown out on the ground that it is a civil dispute. (M/s Kusum Ingots Vs State of A.P.),
1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0194 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0152
#3: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Compounding of offence - Accused convicted Appeal dismissed - Dispute settled during the pendency of Revision and payment made - Parties
requested for compounding of offence - Held, in the absence of any contrary provision in the
facts and circumstances of the present case there cannot be any bar for granting permission to
compound the offence in the interest of substantial justice between the parties. (Naimesh
P.Pandya Vs State of Gujarat), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 342 (GUJARAT)
#4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Person in-charge and responsible for
conduct of the business of the company at relevant time - Such allegation made in the
complaint - Question whether he had ceased to be such a person or whether he was never
associated with the company in such a capacity are questions of fact which have to be decided
during the trial. (N.Chandra Sekhar & Ors. Vs M/s Allwyn a unit of Voltas Ltd.,), 1999(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 349 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0744 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0357
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Chitty transaction - Cheque issued by accused in
discharge of his liability in Chitty transaction - Chitty conducted by complainant in contravention
of Chitties Act - Dishonour of cheque - Accused is liable under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments
Act - Chitties Act only penalises the foreman who conducts the Chitty in contravention of
Chitties Act - The Act does not declare the transaction illegal or unlawful or opposed to public
policy. (A.N.Nadarajan Vs K.G.Nadarajan), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 428 (KERALA) : 1999 (3)
ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0243 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0671 : 1999 (1) KLJ 0660
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pleadings - In drafting a criminal complaint, there
is no specific provision either in the Criminal Procedure Code, or in the rules framed thereunder
as to how a criminal complaint has to be drafted - All that is to be seen in the Criminal complaint
is whether the entire substance of the complaint prima facie, makes out an offence said to have
been committed, or whether there is a ground to presume in the entire reading of the substance
of the complaint that the offence is likely to have been committed. (Francis Savio Vs State of
Kerala), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA)
0342 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0732 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4735
#7: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Refer to drawer' - This
indicates that there were insufficient funds in the account of drawer - Section 138 is attracted.
(Francis Savio Vs State of Kerala), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0342 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0732 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4735
#8: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Holder of cheque describing himself as holder in
due course in the complaint - No advantage to be given to the accused on this misdescription.
(Francis Savio Vs State of Kerala), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0342 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0732 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4735
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and
sentenced to pay fine of Rs.20, 000/- - Complainant did not file civil suit for recovery of amount Held, out of Rs.20, 000/- a sum of Rs.15, 000/- to be paid to complainant as compensation under
Section 357 Cr.P.C. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.357) (Francis Savio Vs State of Kerala),
1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0342 :
1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0732 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4735
#10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Contract in pursuance of which cheque issued in
dispute - That dispute to be settled by Civil Court quite different from criminal liability - Offence
u/s 138 relates only to the dishonour of cheque and negligence to pay the amount of the
cheque upon a subsequent statutory notice. (NEPC Micon Ltd. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.), 1999(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (CALCUTTA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0218 : 1999 (1)
RCR (CRL.) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT
0505
#11: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Account closed' - Offence is made out - Not
necessary that bank account should be alive at the time of presentation of cheque. (NEPC Micon
Ltd. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (CALCUTTA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0218 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999
(96) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505
#12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Not sufficient funds in the account - Does not
absolve its liability for the offence under S.138 of the Act. (M/s Kusum Ingots Vs State of A.P.),
1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (A.P.) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0194 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0152
#13: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of five cheque - One notice issued in
respect of all the five cheques and one complaint filed - In terms of the provision under Section
219(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if a person is accused of more offences than one of the
same kind committed within the space of 12 months from the first to the last of such offences
may be charged with and tried at one trial for any number of them not exceeding three - As
there was only one statutory notice to enforce payment of the amount covered by those five
cheque as such the contention of the accused that one trial court not be held, repelled. (NEPC
Micon Ltd. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (CALCUTTA) : 1999 (2) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0218 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 :
1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - When drawer of cheque stops
payment by giving intimation to the Bank, action can be initiated under S.138 of the Act.
(George Vs Muhammed), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 588 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0643 :
1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0396 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0664 : ILR 1992 (2) KERALA 0833
#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - It becomes a cheque on the
date which is written on the said cheque and six months period has to be reckoned for the
purpose of Section 138 of the Act from the said date. (Y.Srinivasa Reddy & Anr. Vs A.V.Aruna
Devi & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 465 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.)
0671 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0135 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0581
#16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Account closed' - Dishonour of cheque - It is an
offence u/s 138 of the Act - Closure of the account would be an eventuality after the entire
amount in the account is withdrawn - It means that there was no amount in the credit of 'that
account' on the relevant date when the cheque was presented for honouring the same. (NEPC
Micon Ltd. & Ors. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 471 (S.C.) : 1999(1)
APEX COURT JOURNAL 624 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0433 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(CALCUTTA) 0147 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0648 : 1999 (2) MPLJ 0024 : 1999 (2) CTC 0347 : AIR
1999 SC 1952 : 1999(4) SCC 253 : 1999 CRI LJ 2883 : 1999(16) OCR 639
#17: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - `Stop payment' - Once the cheque is issued
by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow and the same consequences would
follow where the drawer stops the payment after issue of the cheque. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal
Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR
(CRL.) 0767
cheque is presented has also got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for the offence punishable
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. (Varghese Vs C.K.Ramani), 1999(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 186 (KERALA) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0339 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ
0896 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0368 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0606 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2755
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Cheque issued with consent of
directors of Company - Cheque dishonoured - Prima facie offence against directors is made out No ground to quash the proceedings on the plea that complaint did not disclose that accused
were responsible to the company for conduct of its affairs. (K.Subramanian & Ors. Vs Kamakshi
Extractions & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(A.P.) 0287 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0253 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0335 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0660
#3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pleadings - All the ingredients of offence need
not to be stated in the complaint if factual foundation of the offence has been laid down - Not
necessary that a complainant should reproduce in verbatim all ingredients. (K.Subramanian &
Ors. Vs Kamakshi Extractions & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0287 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0253 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0335 : 1999
(1) ALT (CRL.) 0660
#4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment made before cheque presented in
bank - Cheque of full amount presented - Cheque dishonoured for insufficient funds - Accused is
guilty of offence u/s 138 - It would have been another case if at least accused had an amount
which was payable after part payment. (Andhra Engineering Corporation Vs M/s T.C.I. Finance
Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 650 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0055 :
1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0255 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0674 ; 1999(3) CRIMES 504 : 1999 DCR 130
#5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence by company - Conviction of accused There is no question of convicting the company - Substantive sentence of imprisonment set
aside - Heavy fine reduced to Rs.10, 000/-. (Andhra Engineering Corporation Vs M/s T.C.I.
Finance Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 650 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.)
0055 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0255 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0674 ; 1999(3) CRIMES 504 : 1999 DCR
130
#6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Contention
that payment had been made - As per complainant only part payment is received - Disputed
question of fact involved to be decided by trial Court - No ground to quash proceedings under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Agarwal Auto Traders Vs M/s Globe Tractors (Agencies)), 1999(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 22 (P&H)
#7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Complaint under S.138 Negotiable
Instruments Act through Manager - Complaint as filed not open to challenge - Proof of
authorisation only at the time of trial. (Credential Finance Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.),
1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 27 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0466 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0077 :
1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0538 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 1032 : 1999 (5) BCR 0018 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ
0805
#8: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - No
complaint filed - Cheque again presented on request of accused - Cheque again dishonoured Drawee competent to prosecute under S.138 on second dishonour. (Premlata Chaddha Vs
Surendra Kumar Soni), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (M.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ
(BANKING) 0218 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (M.P.) 0486 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0104 : 1998
(4) RCR (CRL.) 0725 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3657 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0054
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by Managing Director
of Company - Company going under liquidation - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against
Managing Director as also against the Company - Provisions of S.446 of Companies Act are not
applicable under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Proceedings not to be transferred to
Company Court under S.446 of Companies Act. (Companies Act, 1956, S.446) (Jose Antony Vs
Official Liquidator), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (KERALA) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(KERALA) 0266 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0257 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4095
#10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Acquittal Appeal against - Where order of acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds and passed by totally
ignoring acceptable evidence on record, High Court is justified in reversing such order of
Complaint is not maintainable being barred by Sub-section (b) of S.138 of the act. (Mahabir
Prasad Bagrodia Vs State of Bihar), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 270 (PATNA) : 1999 (2) CIVIL LJ
0327 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0136 : 1998 (3) BLJ 0351
#20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Instructions given by the
drawer to the Bank to stop payment as accounts had not been reconciled with the drawee Cheque presented and dishonoured - Drawee is guilty of offence under S.138. (Sukhinder Singh
Vs S.R.Chaudhary), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (P&H) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0279
#21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Petition to quash the proceedings u/s 482 Dismissed by High Court - Petitioner can move the trial Court under S.245 Cr.P.C.and raise all
the pleas except the one taken before High Court. (Sukhinder Singh Vs S.R.Chaudhary), 1999(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (P&H) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0279
#22: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Cheque
presented thrice and each time notice issued - Complaint filed on the basis of third dishonour Complaint can be filed on the basis of fresh cause of action, which accrues for a second or third
time, as the case may be - Held, complaint filed is within limitation. (M/s Rama Bangia Vs M/s
Pushpa Builders Ltd.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (DELHI) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL
LR (DELHI) 0374 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0444 : 1988 CRL. L.J. 4385
#23: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued, presented,
dishonoured and intimation of dishonour received at Bhilai - Complaint filed at Raipur where the
complainant had its principal office - Offence ripening only on failure to pay the amount Amount payable at the place of complainant - Held, Court at Raipur has jurisdiction to entertain
the complaint. (Hindustan Mills and Electricals Stores Vs Kedia Castle Delan Industries Ltd. &
Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (M.P.) : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0082 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0619
: 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0307 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0391 : 1999 (2) CCR 0605 : 1998 (2) MPLJ
0325
#24: PATNA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Territorial jurisdiction - Cause of action arises at a
place where the cheque was issued and drawer of the cheque fails to make payment of the
money - It also arises at a place where the bank to which the cheque was issued is located or a
place where the cheque was issued or delivered. (Binod Sarawgi Vs State of Bihar), 1999(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 444 (PATNA) : 1999 (2) CIVIL LJ 0031 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0181
#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued at `Pune' where the transaction
took place - Cheque deposited for realisation at Pune where company had its sale office - Notice
issued from Bombay where the company has its registered office - Court at Bombay within
whose jurisdiction notice u/s 142 making demand for payment was made had jurisdiction to
entertain the complaint. (Yashomala Engineering Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs Tata SSL Ltd. & Anr.),
1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0273 : 1998 (4)
ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0345 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0469 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0822
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissed for
default for non appearance - Order recalled on the same day when complainant appeared Order of recall set aside as Magistrate cannot recall his order. (Harish Chander Vs Kanti Lal
Virchand Vora), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 555 (BOMBAY) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0128 : 2000
(1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0363 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0137 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0410 :
1999 (5) BCR 0123 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0576
#2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand of amount of cheque and
interest accrued thereon - Notice is not vague. (Suresh Srinivsan Iyengar Vs State of
Maharashtra), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0408 : 1999 (1)
CRIMES 0161 : 1998 BCR (CRL.) 0877 : 1999 (2) CCR 0609
#3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Territorial jurisdiction - Place where the cheque
was given or handed over is relevant and the Courts within that area will have territorial
jurisdiction. (Suresh Srinivsan Iyengar Vs State of Maharashtra), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
459 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0408 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0161 : 1998 BCR (CRL.) 0877 :
1999 (2) CCR 0609
#4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Magistrate summoning the
accused without applying his mind - It is a ground to quash the proceedings. (Secunderabad
Health Care Ltd. Vs Secunderabad Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (A.P)
#5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by Managing Director Cheque dishonoured - Prosecution against Managing Director and five other directors - No
averment in the complaint or even in sworn statement of complainant that the said directors
were responsible to the company for conduct of business and they were aware of the issue of
cheque - Prosecution against the five directors quashed. (Secunderabad Health Care Ltd. Vs
Secunderabad Hospitals Pvt. Ltd.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (A.P)
#6: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 25-- - Cheque period expiring on a public holiday Cheque shall be deemed to be due on the next preceding business day. (K.S.Subbaraman Vs
Iyyammal), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 499 (MADRAS) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(MADRAS) 0736 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0594 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0589
#7: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Cheque issued by Managing Director Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against Managing Director without prosecuting Company Complaint is maintainable. (K.S.Subbaraman Vs Iyyammal), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 499
(MADRAS) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0736 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0594 : 1998
(2) BANKING CASES 0589
#8: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post, within time
and at the correct address - Notice received back with postal endorsement `Garage was closed'
- Held, it is due compliance of statutory requirement. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan),
1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN)
0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0515 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803
#9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured by bank on 10.5.1995 Notice sent to drawer on 23.5.1995 - Held, it is sufficient compliance of statutory requirement as
notice was sent within 15 days of dishonour. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1)
RCR (CRL.) 0515 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803
#10: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice sent on 23.5.1995 - `Garage of drawer
found closed' and postal endorsement dt.31.5.1995 - Complaint filed on 9.6.1995 - Complainant
examined on 7.9.1995 - Quashing of complaint on ground that it was premature, not justified Magistrate was fully competent to take cognizance after the expiry of 15 days. (Bhanwar Lal Vs
State of Rajasthan), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0515 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW
1803
#11: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Pre-mature complaint - Complaint filed before
expiry of 15 days - Magistrate can take cognizance after expiry of 15 days of notice. (Bhanwar
Lal Vs State of Rajasthan), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0515 : 1999 CRL. L.J. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW
1803
#12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand of payment of cheque - Not
necessary to mention amount of dishonoured cheque - Amount of cheque can safely be
presumed to be known to drawer. (Suresh Srinivsan Iyengar Vs State of Maharashtra), 1999(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0408 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0161 : 1998
BCR (CRL.) 0877 : 1999 (2) CCR 0609
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque due to structural defects i.e.
any defect in its form, want of signature, date not properly written, figure of the amount has
been overwritten or erasures in the drawer's name etc. - S.138 is not attracted - This section is
also not attracted if drawer refuses to replace the cheque. (Babulal Nainmal Jain Vs Khimji
Ratanshi Dedhia), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (BOMBAY) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0005 :
1998(1) BANKING CASES 0339 : 1998(3) MAH LJ 0762 : 1998(4) ALLMR 0287 : 1998 CRI LJ 4750
#14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused appeared in pursuance to the summons
- There is no need to call upon the accused to furnish security for his enlargement.
(K.Pandarinathan Vs V.Raju), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 5 (KARNATAKA)
Kumar Vs Shakuntala), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 218 (RAJASTHAN) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0407 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0533 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0409 :
1998 (4) CRIMES 0120 : 1998 (1) CCR 0111 : 1998 (2) RLW 0798 : 1998 (2) WLC (RAJ) 0304
#1: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cognizance of offence - Can be taken if (i)
complaint is made in writing by the payee or the `holder in due course' of the cheque; (ii) such
complaint is made within one month of the date of which the cause of action as contemplated
under clause (c) of the proviso to S.138 arises and (iii) a metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial
Magistrate first class shall try the offence punishable under S.138. (Sri Niranjan Sahoo Vs M/s
Utkal Sanitary), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (ORISSA) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0780 : 1999 (2)
RCR (CRL.) 0523 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0188
#2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - When an offence is committed,
subsequent order appointing a provisional liquidator or order winding up the Company can have
no bearing on the proceedings under S.138. (Orkay Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of
Maharashtra & Ors.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL
LR (BOMBAY) (D.B.) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354
#3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - If after notice payment has not been
made by a Company merely on the ground that a petition for its winding up has been presented,
it amounts to `failure to make payment' under S.138. (Orkay Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of
Maharashtra & Ors.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL
LR (BOMBAY) (D.B.) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354
#4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - There is no
conflict between S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments and S.536(2) read with S.441(2) of the
Companies Act as they operate in separate fields. (Orkay Industries Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of
Maharashtra & Ors.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL
LR (BOMBAY) (D.B.) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354
#5: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Second revision - Dishonour of cheque - Revision
against the charges under S.397(3) Cr.P.C. - Sessions Judge dismissed the revision - Second
revision before High Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not
maintainable. (K.Govindaraj Vs Ashwin Barai), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (MADRAS) :
1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0412 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0378 : 1998 (1) BANKING
CASES 0581 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0236 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0022 : 1999 (1) CCR 0294 : 1997 (2)
CTC 0567 : 1998(1) MWN(CRI.) 71
#6: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Six cheques of different dates - On request of
accused all six cheques presented on one date - All the cheques dishonoured - Offence relates
to single transaction - Accused to be tried at one trial. (K.Govindaraj Vs Ashwin Barai), 1998(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (MADRAS) : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0412 : 1998 (3)
RCR (CRL.) 0378 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0236 : 1998 CRL. L.J.
0022 : 1999 (1) CCR 0294 : 1997 (2) CTC 0567 : 1998(1) MWN(CRI.) 71
#7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque issued by
Company - Prosecution against Company and its Directors - Permission of Company Court under
Section 441 of Companies Act is not required. (Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. Vs Kanosika Laboratories
Ltd.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 56 6 (A.P.)
#8: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - If the partnership firm fails to
pay the amount within the stipulated time, after receipt of notice, the partners are also liable to
be prosecuted. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283
#9: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partnership firm - Notice - When firm has been
served with a notice each partner need not be served with a separate notice individually. (Girish
Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998
(4) RCR (CRL.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283
#10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Sent as per registered post - Service
shall be deemed to be effected unless contrary is proved. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs
Kanhaiyalal Chandak), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.)
Bhorathe), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0370 : 1998 (3) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0347 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0344 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0496 : 1998 CRL.
L.J. 0043
#4: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand of amount of cheque and
amount of incidental charges - Both amounts indicated separately - Held, notice is valid - If any
extra amount is claimed in the notice that would not vitiate the notice. (Ajay Kumar Churiwal Vs
Suman Sethi), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 219 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0507 : 1998
(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0016 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0239 : 1998 (2) BANKING
CASES 0697 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0345 : 1998 (3) CCR 0592 : 1998 CCLR 0287
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 118(g), 9-- - Bearer cheque - Dishonoured due to
insufficiency of funds - There is presumption under S.118(g) that holder of a negotiable
instrument is a holder in due course - Under Section 118(a), there is a presumption that every
negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration - This presumption is, however,
rebuttable. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) :
1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0257 : 1998 (2)
BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 :
1998 (1) KLT 0384
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Bearer cheque - Issued in favour of the appellant
but the same was sent for collection through his friend - Cheque contained no endorsement to
this effect - Held, a bearer cheque can be presented for encashment without any endorsement
by the party. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA)
: 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0257 : 1998 (2)
BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 :
1998 (1) KLT 0384
#7: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court
within whose jurisdiction the cheque was presented for encashment, has also got jurisdiction to
entertain a complaint. (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) :
1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES
0263
#8: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued - Intimation
by drawer to payee or the holder in due course thereafter that sufficient amount is available in
the bank to honour the cheque - Does not absolve him from his liability to pay the amount. (Itty
Mathew Vs Ramani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 :
1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - If the Court
comes to a finding that it has no jurisdiction to try the case, it is not at all justified in finding the
respondent not guilty and acquitting her - In case Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of
the offence complaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court with an
endorsement to that effect. (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA)
: 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0303 : 1998 (3)
CRIMES 0263
#10: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Complaint filed in the name of Company through Administrative manager who has signed the
complaint - No special authority is required - Question of authorisation arises only if the
complaint is filed in person name for and on behalf of the company - Held, complaint is
maintainable. (Geekay Exim (India) Ltd., & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 434 (GUJARAT) : 1998 CRI LJ 700 : 1998(2) ALL INDIA CRI LR 399
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Notice issued to company Company not made an accused - Complaint filed against directors only - Directors even if not
alleged to be incharge of the business of the company and were responsible to the company for
the conduct of the business of the company in the complaint then the same can well be
supplied at the trial by adducing evidence - Notice whether is in conformity to the provisions of
the Act is a matter of evidence - It is also a matter of evidence whether the notice issued to the
company alone and no notice was issued to the directors thereof - Further it is also a matter of
evidence whether notice issued to the company could be taken to be a notice to the directors of
the company it is the directors composing the company to whom the issuance of notice would
matter - Held, complaint cannot be quashed. (T.P.Singh Kalra Vs The Star Wire India Ltd.),
1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0385 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0629 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0179 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0487 : 1998
(93) COMP. CASES 0186 : 1998 (1) CLR 0390
#12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Cause of action' - Does not arise merely on the
cheque being dishonoured - It arises only on failure to make the payment within fifteen days of
the receipt of notice. (Y.Krishnamurthy Vs Sharanappa), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144
(KARNATAKA) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0072 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(KARNATAKA) (D.B.) 0310 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0627 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0333 : 1999 (1)
BANKING CASES 0181 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0205 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0491 : 1998 (2) ALT
(CRL.) 0273 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0001
#13: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Registered notice - If the letter is sent by
post pre-paid and properly addressed and posted by registered post to addressee - Addressee
can be imputed with the knowledge of contents of notice. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998
(3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553
#14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Witness when not cited in the list of witnesses Court can allow such witness to be examined under S.311 Cr.P.C. (M/s Visva Cement Products,
Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40
(KARNATAKA)
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action Arises only on failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days is not maintainable. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran),
1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.)
0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553
#16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Specifying seven days period to make
payment- Notice is not invalid as the respondent is entitled to make the payment within 15 days
of the receipt of this notice. (Ravinder Kumar Vs Sohan Lal), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 607
(P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0428 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0753 : 1998 (4) CIVIL
LJ 0582 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0511 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0531 : 1999 (98) COMP. CASES
0328 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3273 : 1998 (4) CCR 0794 : 1998 (25) CRI LT 0071
#17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - - Cheque issued by H and dishonoured Complaint against H and his wife as the loan was for purchase of car in the name of wife Complaint against wife quashed - Provision contemplates punishment only against the drawer of
the cheque but not others. (G.Surya Prabhavathi Vs Nekkanti Subrahmanyeswara Rao), 1998(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 617 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0438 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0788 : 1998 (91)
COMP. CASES 0223 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0543
#18: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 118(1)-- - Cash cheque is a legal and valid
negotiable instrument - Non mentioning of payee's name and the striking off the words `or
bearer' does not make the cheque invalid. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA)
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 9-- - A bearer cheque can be presented for
encashment without any endorsement by the party - Presentation of the cash cheque not by the
complainant but by another person - It is of no consequence. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph
J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA)
#20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Legally enforceable liability - Complainant is
bound to discharge the initial burden cast upon him that the cheque was given by the accused
in discharge of legally enforceable liability - Complainant failing to prove satisfactorily that he
has sufficient capacity to lend the amount of Rs.1, 25, 000/- by way of cheque and his failure to
prove that amount was actually drawn by the accused - Held, accused cannot be punished
under S.138 of the Act. (A.Bhoosanrao Vs Purushothamdas Pantani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 655 (A.P.)
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque
is dishonoured has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Ponnappan Vs Sibi), 1998(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0010 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0077 : 1998
(3) CRIMES 0238 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2402
#22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued for Rs.10, 000/- towards part
payment out of a liability of Rs.44117/- Thereafter draft for Rs.5500/- paid - Cheque presented
and dishonoured - Complaint filed - Thereafter cash amount of Rs.5, 000/- made - Held, even
after the adjustment of these two amounts, still the accused is liable to pay nearly an amount of
Rs.34, 000/- Hence, as long as there is legally enforceable liability either on the date of issuance
of the cheque or on the date of encashment of the cheque, the complainant is entitled to
encash the cheque issued by the accused - Order of acquittal passed by Magistrate set aside.
(Padmaja Marketing Enterprises Vs V.S.R.Murthy), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 684 (A.P.) : 1998
ISJ (BANKING) 0412 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0284 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0034 :
1997 (4) CRIMES 0106 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0881 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0245 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.)
0814 : 1998 (36) BANK LJ 0077 : 1997 (2) LS AP 0020
#23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Company includes firm Prosecution can be launched either against company alone, or person in charge of affairs of
company alone, or both together - Firm when prosecuted alongwith partner who had signed the
cheque - Held, there is no irregularity. (M/s Visva Cement Products, Gadag Vs Karnataka State
Financial Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA)
#24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cognizance of offence - Magistrate who has
received complaint of offence is deemed to have already taken cognizance of offence when he
proceeds to record sworn statement of complainant. (M/s Visva Cement Products, Gadag Vs
Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA)
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Adjournment of complaint to some other
date to examine the complainant under S.200 Cr.P.C. - Does not constitute taking cognizance of
the offence. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ
(BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque endorsed in favour of a third party Cheque dishonoured - Complaint filed by original payee - Complaint is not maintainable as the
payee as lost every right over the cheque by endorsing the same in favour of third party.
(H.L.Aggarwal Vs Rakesh Aggarwal), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 487 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING)
0079 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0045 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0531 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0678
#2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - List of witnesses when not given to accused - It is
always open to the accused to approach the Trial Court and insist for the list of witnesses Proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground alone. (M/s Visva Cement Products, Gadag Vs
Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint filed by Company through authorised
representative - Said authorised representative left the service of the company - Held, there is
nothing wrong in substituting a fresh Power of Attorney or representative of the company in the
place of previous Power of Attorney or representative. (Benhur T&I Pvt.Ltd. Vs State of Kerala),
1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 341 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0184 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.)
0611 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0296 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0336 : 1997 (2) KLT 0985
#4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Cheque amount claimed within less than
fifteen days - Held, by itself is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings if complaint is made
within one month after expiry of fifteen days from date of receipt of notice by drawer - Payee
need not specifically mention in the notice to pay the amount within fifteen days - The only
requirement is that drawer has to wait for fifteen days after receipt of notice by drawer before
filing complaint for non-payment of the amount payable under the cheque. (K.Muralidhar Rao Vs
State of A.P.), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (A.P.) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.)
0325 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0151 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0290 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0748 : 1998
(1) CCR 0171 : 1997 (6) ANDH LT 0079 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0399 : 1997 APLJ (CRL.) 0521 : 1997 (25)
CRI LT 0144 : 1998 (91) COM CAS 0723 : 1998 (1) CUR CRI R 0080
#5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Amounts to dishonour of
cheque. (Amar Nath Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwal), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H)
#6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by attorney - His prosecution is
unwarranted. (Amar Nath Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwal), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H)
#7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Can be presented any number of times
within the period of validity of cheque - Cause of action for complaint would arise only when
pursuant to the dishonour of the cheque notice was issued and the drawer of the cheque failed
to make payment. (M.Sharma and Co. Vs S.K.Soni alias Satish Kumar Soni), 1998(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 431 (P&H) : 1998 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0257 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.)
0809 : 1998 (1) CRIMES 0535 : 1998 (2) CCR 0259
#8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Partner - Proceedings cannot be initiated against
every partner of the firm - Every person who was in charge and responsible for the affairs and
conduct of the business of the company or firm at the time when the alleged offence was
committed, is also liable for prosecution along with the company. (B.Lakshmi Vs M/s Trishul Coal
Services & Transporters), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 454 (A.P.) : 1998 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL
LR (A.P.) 0607 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0669 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0435 : 1998 (93) COMP.
CASES 0292 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0157 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 3616 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0383 : 1998 (2)
CCR 0677
#9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Magistrate can drop the proceedings if after appearance of accused no evidence is found
against the accused. (B.Lakshmi Vs M/s Trishul Coal Services & Transporters), 1998(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 454 (A.P.) : 1998 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0607 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.)
0669 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0435 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0292 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0157 :
1997 CRL. L.J. 3616 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0383 : 1998 (2) CCR 0677
#10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment made - Is of no avail to the drawer
of the cheque for evading prosecution. (Vandana Jain Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate), 1998(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 476 (ALLAHABAD) : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0453 : 1998
(1) RCR (CRL.) 0125 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0553 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0129 : 1998 (37) BANK LJ
0216 : 1998 AIHC 0918 : 1997 ALL LJ 2108 : 1997 (21) ALL CRI R 0794 : 1997 UP CRI R 0535 :
1998 (25) CRI LT 0147
#11: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment made or that the cheque is for
discharge of liability or debt - These are questions of fact which trial Court has to decide after
recording evidence - No ground to quash the complaint under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Vandana Jain
Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 476 (ALLAHABAD) : 1998 (2) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0453 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0125 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES
0553 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0129 : 1998 (37) BANK LJ 0216 : 1998 AIHC 0918 : 1997 ALL LJ 2108 :
1997 (21) ALL CRI R 0794 : 1997 UP CRI R 0535 : 1998 (25) CRI LT 0147
#12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - List of witnesses - Though the wording of
S.204(2) Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory, it is only in the nature of directory and nonfurnishing of list of witnesses is only an irregularity which can be cured under Section 465
Criminal Procedure Code. (M/s Visva Cement Products, Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial
Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA)
#13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Company - No Magistrate shall insist
that the particular person, whose statement was taken on oath at the first instance, alone can
continue to represent the Company till the end of the proceedings. (Associated Cement Co.Ltd.
Vs Keshvanand), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 482 (S.C.) : 1998(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 238
(S.C.) : AIR 1998 SC 0596 : 1998 CRI LJ 0856 :1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0171 : 1998(1) CRIMES 88 :
1998(2) PLR 812 : 1998 CRI LR 856 : JT 1997(10) SC 165 : AIR 1998 SC 596 : 1997 DGLS 1597 :
1998(1) SCC 687 : 1998(1) RCR(CR.) 309
#14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Every person who at the time
the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for the
conduct of the business of the company would be deemed to be guilty of the offence - Nothing
in complaint to show that petitioners were incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the
business of the Company - Complaint qua petitioners quashed. (Kishori Lal Vs Pawan Kumar),
1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 657 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0023
#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused producing receipt
showing payment - Contention of complainant that receipt is forged - Enquiry by Court under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. initiated - Proceedings under Section 138 cannot be stayed pending enquiry Scope of both the proceedings is different. (M/s M.S.Shoes East Limited Vs M/s Modella Knitwear
Limited), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0190 : 1998 (1) RCR
(CRL.) 0482 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0296
#16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused producing receipt
showing payment - Contention of complainant that receipt is forged - Application for initiating
proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. - During the enquiry under S.340 Cr.P.C. the only point for
consideration would be whether there is prima facie material to proceed against the person
concerned - Even during the enquiry under S.340 Cr.P.C. the question of genuineness or
otherwise of the document in question would not be finally adjudicated. (M/s M.S.Shoes East
Limited Vs M/s Modella Knitwear Limited), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ
(BANKING) 0190 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0482 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0296
#17: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque and Bank's memo returned to drawer Contention of accused that he paid the amount - Trial Court has to consider the effect of return
of dishonoured cheque to accused - In the instant case complaint quashed. (Narender Anand &
Ors. Vs M/s Maruti Udyog Limited), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (DELHI) : 1998 (1) RCR
(CRL.) 0036 : 1997 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0376 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0759
#18: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice - 15 days period - First day of receipt
of notice has to be excluded. (Sardar Singh Vs Karam Singh), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 539
(J&K) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0154 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (J&K) 0456 : 1997 (4) RCR
(CRL.) 0671 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0501 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 3751
#19: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Blank cheque given by merely signing it Accused has written name of the payee and the figure - Does not amount to any criminal
offence. (United India Phosphorous Ltd. Vs Vinod Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 542 (GUJARAT) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0085 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0764
#20: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Counter
complaint by drawer of cheque u/ss 409, 420 & 463 etc. IPC alleging that cheque by merely
signing it was given whereas name and amount was filled by the payee himself - Quashment of
counter complaint sought - Question whether cheque is a forged one cannot be considered in a
separate criminal proceeding - Counter complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law Proceedings of counter complaint quashed. (United India Phosphorous Ltd. Vs Vinod Bhai Mohan
Bhai Patel), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (GUJARAT) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0085 : 1997 (89)
COMP. CASES 0764
#21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Payment of Rs.20 lacs after institution of
complaint - Complainant not yet admitted the receipt of this amount against the cheque - Prayer
of quashment of complaint declined as it is a question of fact. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella
Knitwear), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0025 : 1997 (3)
CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0230
#22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Averments in complaint that
accused are active and responsible Directors of the Company - Prayer to quash complaint
declined. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella Knitwear), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) :
1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0025 : 1997 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0230
#23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Complaint - No allegation
in the complaint that drawer issued chque in discharge of whole or part of the legally
enforceable debt or liability - Complaint is not maintaianble. (Uplanche Mallikarjun Vs Rat Kanti
Vimala), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 611 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0175 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.)
0087 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0677 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0149 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 4237 : 1997 (2)
ALT (CRL.) 0342
#24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque if given by way of gift or present Dishonour of cheque - Complaint under S.138 is not maintaianble. (Uplanche Mallikarjun Vs Rat
Kanti Vimala), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 611 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0175 : 1998 (1) RCR
(CRL.) 0087 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0677 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0149 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 4237 :
1997 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0342
#25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant - Absent - If the presence of the
complainant is not necessary on the day the complaint is fixed then resorting to the step of
axing down the complaint may not be a proper exercise of the power envisaged in the section.
(Associated Cement Co.Ltd. Vs Keshvanand), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 482 (S.C.) : 1998(1)
APEX COURT JOURNAL 238 (S.C.) : AIR 1998 SC 0596 : 1998 CRI LJ 0856 :1999 ISJ (BANKING)
0171 : 1998(1) CRIMES 88 : 1998(2) PLR 812 : 1998 CRI LR 856 : JT 1997(10) SC 165 : AIR 1998
SC 596 : 1997 DGLS 1597 : 1998(1) SCC 687 : 1998(1) RCR(CR.) 309
#1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice - Service of notice is essential to
constitution the offence. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536
(RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW
0604 : 1996 RCC 0508
#2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Firm - Managing partner of the firm and the
person who represents the association can be prosecuted along with the firm or association - All
the partners and members of the association need not be arraigned as accused persons. (Nucor
Wires Ltd. Vs HMT International), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 ISJ
(BANKING) 0202 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0361 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0411 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.)
0340 : 1997 ILR KARNATKA 3239 : 1998 (1) CCR 0502 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0337 : 1998 VOL.91
COMPANY CASES 850
#3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Large number of accused - Court to find out as to
whether all the accused persons are properly arraigned as accused persons - If the Court finds
that some of the accused persons are unnecessarily being arrayed it is always open to the Court
to discharge them or direct the complainant to delete their names to avoid unnecessary delay,
harassment and also causing inconvenience to such persons. (Nucor Wires Ltd. Vs HMT
International), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0202 : 1998
(2) CIVIL LJ 0361 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0411 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0340 : 1997 ILR
KARNATKA 3239 : 1998 (1) CCR 0502 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0337 : 1998 VOL.91 COMPANY CASES 850
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - `Person incharge and responsible' No allegation in the complaint that petitioner was responsible to the company or was incharge
of the company - No act or negligence attributed to him - Complaint qua the petitioner quashed.
(Raj Kumar Mangla Vs Indo Lowebrau Breweries), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (P&H)
#5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn up at Dena
Bank, New Delhi - Presented through bank at Chandigarh - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint at
Chandigarh is maintaianble. (Meltro Enterprises Vs Ramesh Chander), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL
COURT CASES 239 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0844 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.)
0638
#6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Complaint against partners - Firm not
a party - Complaint cannot be quashed. (Aruna Khurana & Ors. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers), 1997
(SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H)
#7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Plea for quashment on the ground that
notice was not served - Plea repelled - It is for the complainant to establish during the trial that
notice was sent. (Aruna Khurana & Ors. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT
CASES 256 (P&H)
#8: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Letter demanding payment - Letter
requiring the accused to make payment is equivalent to legal notice. (German Remedies Ltd. Vs
Harish C.Duggal Agencies), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (DELHI)
#9: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Demand of payment within 11 days Drawer had a right to make payment within 15 days - Drawer cannot take advantage of the
complainant having restricted the period to 11 days. (German Remedies Ltd. Vs Harish
C.Duggal Agencies), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (DELHI)
#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint and civil suit pending - Criminal
case is not to be stayed till disposal of suit on the ground that unconditional leave to defend the
suit is granted. (Saral Enterprises Vs Ashok Thaper), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 457
(BOMBAY)
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0299 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0163 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0135
#20: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - 'Stop payment' - Contract for storage of goods
and to keep them in safe condition - Damage to goods - Payment stopped - Civil suit filed for
recovering the loss - Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case criminal
proceedings stayed till disposal of the civil suit. (Anil Kumar Parolia Vs Mohd.Shafique), 1997(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 20 (CALCUTTA)
#21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured Prosecution of Chairman alone without impleading the Company - Complaint is maintainable Under S.141, the Company and the person who is incharge and responsible to Company for
conduct of its business are both liable for punishment, but there is no requirement that both of
them should be prosecuted - Their liability is independent - Each of them is independently liable
for punishment. (R.Ramachandran Vs Yerram Sesha Reddy), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 136
(A.P.) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0209 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0470 : 1997 (2)
BANKING CASES 0253 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0830 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1595 : 1997 (2) CCR
0574 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0169
#22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH .COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Summoning order - Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. - Held,
when facts are in dispute, in that event High Court will not exercise its inherent powers and
indulge in the minute scrutiny of facts - It could be so done only on admitted facts - Petitioner
may approach the Magistrate that process against him ought not to have been issued and
Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied that there is no offence for which the
accused could be tried. (M/s Atma Tube Products Limited & Ors. Vs M/s Bhushan Steel and Strips
Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 149 (P&H) : 1997 (2) AIJ 0668 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL
LR (P&H) 0776 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0200
#23: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Notice issued but when it was received
neither mentioned in complaint nor in statement - Complaint is not maintainable as it does not
disclose commission of offence u/s 138 of the Act - Plea that all such questions are to be
determined by trial Court, negated - Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Parmod Kumar
Vs Subodh Kumar), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 167 (H.P.)
#24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cause of action
accrues only on failure to make payment within IS days from date of receipt of notice or refusal
to accept notice - Complaint filed within seven days from date of refusal to accept notice - Held,
complaint is premature as complainant had no cause of action on date of complaint. (Ashok
Hegde Vs JathinV.Attawan), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0773 : 1998 (1) CIVIL LJ 0433 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0530 : 1998 (1)
BANKING CASES 0123 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0445 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 3691 : 1997 (3) CCR 0776
#25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Bank endorsement
'Signatures did not tally' and 'Refer to drawer' - Expression 'Refer to drawer' means there were
not sufficient funds with the bank in the account of drawer - Case under S.138 is made out - The
question as to whether signatures of the drawer did or did not tally is a question of fact to be
decided at trial. (M/s Lily Hire Purchase Pvt.Ltd., Jalandhar Vs Darshan Lal), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL
COURT CASES 479 (P&H) : 1997 (1) AIJ 0069
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Repeated representation - It is permitted within
six months or within the date of its validity whichever is earlier - Drawee can issue notice on any
of the dishonour and on failure of the drawer to make payment can initiate prosecution.
(G.Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) :
1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0239 : 1998 (1)
BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.)
0688
#2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Mere dishonour of
cheque does not constitute offence under Section 138 - Payee has to give notice to drawer
within 15 days of receipt of information from Bank demanding payment - Cause of action would
arise if no payment is made by the drawer within 15 days of receipt of notice - Fulfilment of
these ingredients under Ss.138, 142 is sine qua non for institution of complaint. (Harshivinder
Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.B.) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0816 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 0345 : 1998 (35)
BANK LJ 0278
by defence - Magistrate allowed application - Reasons not given-Order is irregular but not illegal
- Leading of evidence includes examination of witnesses - Summoning of witnesses is another
thing-A witness can be examined even without issuance of summons if a party keeps him
present. (Madhu Bansal Vs Dinesh Kumar), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 5 (P&H) : 1996 (3) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0569 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0459 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0141 : 1997 CRL.
L.J. 2020 : 1996 (4) CCR 0604 : 1996 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0172 : 1996 CRI LT 0384 :
1996 (2) CHAND LR (CIV & CRI) 0493
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque -Cheque presented after
five months of its issue - Not a ground to quash complaint - Cheque can be presented at any
time of its validity. (Sunil Talwar Vs Inderjit Singh), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 28 (P&H) : 1996
(3) RCR (CRL.) 0699
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of
attorney holder - Landlord authorised his general Power of Attorney holder to collect rent and
file civil & Revenue suits in case of dispute - Held, attorney can file criminal complaint too - Mere
fact that word `Criminal Court' has not been expressly mentioned would not preclude the
Attorney from filing criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act. (Surinder Singh Vs John
Impex (Pvt.) Ltd.), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 81 (P&H) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0622 : 1997 (1)
BANKING CASES 0247
#25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Continuing offence
from 16th day of receipt of demand by drawer if amount remains unpaid - But only one
complaint is maintainable - Repeated, multiple or successive complaints in respect of same
cheque - Not permissible. (G.Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR
(CRL.) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL. L.J.
1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0688
#1: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Dismissal for default - Complaint
fixed for 20th May but counsel misheard it to be 22nd May - Non appearance of complainant or
his counsel on 20th May was neither intentional nor due to negligence - Order of dismissal for
default set aside. (Shiv Kumar Vs Mohd.Saghir), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 371 (DELHI) : 1997
(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) (D.B.) 0314 : 1997 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0709
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Refer to drawer' - Means many reasons
including the reason that there was no sufficient fund for honouring the cheque. (Raj Vs Rajan),
1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KERALA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0680 :
1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0508 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0027 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0059 :
1997 CRL. L.J. 1939 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0359 : 1997 (3) CCR 0643 : 1997 (1) KLT 0302
#3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Death of complainant - Proceedings do not ipso
facto terminate or abate - Magistrate can allow substitution if satisfied from surrounding
circumstances and materials on record that such permission should be given - Son allowed to be
substituted as complainant. (S.Reddappa Vs M.Vijaya), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248
(KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0160 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES
0609 : 1997 (2) CRIMES 0272 : 1997 (1) CCR 0631
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Contention that dishonour
of cheque is only a civil liability - Plea negated. (Ajit Singh Oberoi Vs Malvinder Singh), 1997(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 263 (P&H)
#5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Not served and notice intentionally sent
at wrong address - Held, these are matters of evidence - Complaint cannot be quashed. (Ajit
Singh Oberoi Vs Malvinder Singh), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 263 (P&H)
#6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Signature on AD different from the
signature on cheque - Correctness of address and despatch by registered post not disputed Presumption is delivery of notice to the accused - A person consciously or unconsciously may
put different signatures - In the instant case the accused being conscious about anticipated
litigation might have scribed different signature with dishonest and deliberate intention of
defeating provisions. (Satish Jayantilal Shah Vs Pankaj Mashruwala), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 270 (GUJARAT) : 1998(1) CIVIL LJ 822 : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.) 0720 : 1992(2) CRIMES 0203 :
1996 CRL. L.J. 3099 : 1997 (1) CCR 0603
cannot be thrown at the threshold. (Navrattan Jain Vs M/s Capital Leasing & Finance Co.),
1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 514 (P&H) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0300 : 1997 (1)
RCR (CRL.) 0633 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0118
#22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Liability to pay - Cheque issued by employee in
favour of employer - Relations were of master and servant or employee and employer - No
business or commercial or mercantile relations between the parties - No liability to pay Complainant failed to prove the case to attract the provisions of S.138. (Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd. Vs
Chico Ursula D'Souza), 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY)
#23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint to be vigilantly checked by the
Criminal Courts and they should not allow short circuits - Parties should not be allowed to
appease their anger or return their vengeance by starting proceedings in criminal Courts where
proper remedy is to resort of Civil Court. (Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 1996(2)
CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY)
#24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Holder of cheque-There is a presumption
that the cheque received is for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability
and the accused is required to dislodge this presumption. (Ganesh Sukhlal Joshi Vs M.A.Bharti),
1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (BOMBAY)
#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Failure to prove the case to attract the
provisions of S.138 - There is no question to rebut the presumption under S.139 of the Act. (Goa
Plast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY)
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque in favour of partnership firm - Dishonour
of cheque - Complaint filed by a partner - Held, complaint is filed by a proper person. (Brijlal Vs
Jugal Kishore & Ors.), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES
0155 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0636
#2: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Manager or agent of proprietorship concern -Can
file a complaint. (Ranjit Ray & Anr. Vs Pukharaj Jain), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572 (ORISSA) :
1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ORISSA) 0570 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0080 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0110
: 1997 (1) CCR 0475 : 1996 (2) OCR 0360 : 1996 CULT 0528 : 1996 (2) OLR 0412
#3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint - Dismissal for non appearance of
complainant - There is no provision in the Code for revival of the complaint. (Narayandas
Gulabchand Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar Porwal & Anr.), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
592 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0564 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0176 : 1996 (1) CCR 0047
#4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Dismissed for
non prosecution on 21.9.1991 - On same day restoration application filed -Complaint restored Revision against - Revision allowed by Sessions Judge -Thereafter complainant filing appeal
against order dt.21.9.1991 - Held, conduct of complainant not bona fide and in good faith in
prosecuting the matter and having taken chance by contesting application filed by accused Delay in filing appeal not condoned. (Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Nem
Kumar Porwal & Anr.), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0564 :
1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0176 : 1996 (1) CCR 0047
#5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Stop payment' but
sufficient funds in account - Cheque returned by bank on ground of `Refer to drawer' - No case
made out for quashing complaint - Trial Court to decide real cause for non- payment of cheque.
(Deepak Agarwal Vs Shanti Swarup Jain), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (ALLAHABAD) : 1995
(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0037 : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0493 : 1995 (1) BANKING
CASES 0403 : 1996 (85) COMP. CASES 0771 : 1995 (3) CRIMES 0683 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0596
#6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Taking cognizance of
offence - If the Magistrate takes some steps as provided under S.200 Cr.P.C. it necessarily
means that he has taken cognizance of the offence. (R.Rajendra Reddy Vs M/s Sujaya Feeds),
1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0491 : 1994 (3) CRIMES
0692 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1427
#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
0161 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0483 : 1995 (84) COMP. CASES 0587 : 1996 (3) CRIMES 0008
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Claim satisfied as the amount stood paid Complaint u/s 138 quashed. (Hardip Singh Vs Gurnam Singh Randhawa), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 620 (P&H)
#5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint against father & son - Father ordered
to be summoned - However, summons issued both against father & son - Application of son to
discharge him from the case dismissed on the ground that there is no provision in the Cr.P.C. for
the discharge of the accused in summon case - High Court quashed summoning order against
son - Held, it is abuse of process of Court. (Atul Jain Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar),
1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (P&H) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0637 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES
0392
#6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - The mere fact that the company had been
declared a sick industrial unit is not a ground to quash the complaint. (M.M.Rajagaria Vs State of
Punjab), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 8 (P&H) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0520 :
1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0464
#7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Refer to drawer' - Means there are not sufficient
funds in the account to meet the claim. (M.M.Rajagaria Vs State of Punjab), 1995(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 8 (P&H) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0520 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0464
#8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Date of
return of cheque by Bank not mentioned in complaint - Date given in notice which has been
exhibited - Held, there is no deficiency in complaint. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs
Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 :
1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998
(92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA
2689
#9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice Dt.10.6.1992 - On the
acknowledgement date mentioned as 13.6 - If the notice is dispatched on 13.6.1992 then it is
beyond 15 days of intimation of dishonour - Held, at the stage of deciding whether process is to
be issued or not Magistrate is not required to assess the material on record minutely - High
Court cannot quash the proceedings on this ground. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs
Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 :
1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998
(92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA
2689
#10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complainant not examined on oath by
Magistrate but allowed the Advocate to examine him - It is violative of S.200 - Defect is,
however curable. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1)
CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING
CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 :
1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689
#11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of
funds - Notice not issued - Cheque presented again - No illegality - Complaint is maintainable.
(Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19
(KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 :
1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 :
1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J.
0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689
#12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Date of issuance of notice mentioned in
complaint and not date of receipt of notice - Mere fact that the date of delivery of notice is not
mentioned in the complaint, does not affect the maintainability of the complaint. (S.K.Trading &
Co. Vs Beerbal Dass Jindal), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (ALLAHABAD) : 1996 (1) RCR
(CRL.) 0161 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0483 : 1995 (84) COMP. CASES 0587 : 1996 (3) CRIMES
0008
#13: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Payee or holder in due course can only file
a complaint. (Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs K.S.Selvamani), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 118
(MADRAS) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0291 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0334 :
1995 (1) BCLR 0347 : 1995 (86) COMP. CASES 0806 : 1994 (4) CCR 2374 : 1994 (1) LW (CRL.)
0337 : 1997(1) MAD LW (CRI) 337
#14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint
sought that full details as to dishonour of cheque not given in notice - Held, technicalities should
not come in the way of justice. (Avtar Singh Vs Accounts Officer, Telephones Revenue), 1995(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 361 (P&H) : 1995 (1) BCLR 0342
#15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Cognizance
should precede the recording of the sworn statement and if the Magistrate straight away on
receipt of the complaint records the sworn statement and thereafter takes cognizance, it
contravenes S.200 Cr.P.C. (Samant Vs K.G.N.Traders), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 134
(KARNATAKA)
#16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by firm - Persons who are
incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of business can be prosecuted without the
firm itself being prosecuted. (Samant Vs K.G.N.Traders), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 134
(KARNATAKA)
#17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Validity - 7 days time given for payment Held, notice is not bad as it is not necessary for the payee to specify any time in the notice for
making payment. (Samant Vs K.G.N.Traders), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (KARNATAKA)
#18: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque can be presented any number of
times within its period of validity or within a period of six months from the date of issuance and
on each occasion when the cheque is dishonoured the petitioner gets a fresh cause of action to
file complaint and the limitation would be computed from that point of time. (Konark Cables Vs
Premier Engineering & Electricals), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (DELHI) : 1995 (1) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0435 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0412 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0092 :
1995 (1) BCLR 0409 : 1995 (82) COMP. CASES 0452 : 1996 BJ 0045 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL.
CASES 0147 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1086 : 1994 (56) DLT 0066
#19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Amount due on cheque whether a liability or in
the nature of a loan - Question is to be gone into after recording of evidence - Summoning order
cannot be quashed. (Vikram Bhargav Vs Ashish Pal Khatri), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 259
(P&H) : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0596 : 1995 (1) LJR 0552
#20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Cheques issued from Delhi - Cheque
dishonoured at Panipat - Court at Panipat has jurisdiction to try the complaint. (Vikram Bhargav
Vs Ashish Pal Khatri), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (P&H) : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0596 : 1995
(1) LJR 0552
#21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque issue by servant - Amounts to
issuing of cheque by the principal. (A.Veerabhadra Rao Vs Govt. of A.P.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 284 (A.P.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0530 : 1994 BJ 0652 : 1994 CRL. L.J.
NOC 0158 : 1993 (3) ANDH LT 0705 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0071 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL.) 0277
#22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint filed u/s 420 IPC instead of S.138
Negotiable Instruments Act - Held, when allegations are for an offence u/s.420 IPC nothing
prevents the complainant from filing the complaint u/s.420 IPC. (A.Veerabhadra Rao Vs Govt. of
A.P.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 284 (A.P.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0530 : 1994
BJ 0652 : 1994 CRL. L.J. NOC 0158 : 1993 (3) ANDH LT 0705 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0071 : (1994) MAD LJ
(CRL.) 0277
#23: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Can
neither be extended u/s 473 Cr.P.C. nor the delay condoned u/s 5 of the Limitation Act - A
complaint filed beyond one month of the date on which the cause of action has arisen is barred
and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the
complaint. (Cr.P.C., 1973, S.437, Limitation Act, 1963, S.5). (Kunhimuhammed Vs Khadeeja),
1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (KERALA) : 1995(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0125 :
1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0716 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0019 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0145 : 1998 (92)
COMP. CASES 0610 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0019 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0420 : 1995 AIHC 2962 :
1995(1) KLT 350
#24: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Limitation - Notice received on 9.6.1993 - 15
days time to be counted from 10.6.1993 and would expire on 24.6.1993 - Complaint to be filed
within one month - In the instant case it starts from 25.6.1993 and therefore the complaint
ought to have been filed before 24.7.1993 - It cannot be said that complaint can be filed upto
25.7.1993, which was a holiday, and it having been filed on 26.7.1993 is within time - Held,
complaint filed is beyond time and therefore cognizance is barred. (Poornasree Agencies Vs
Universal Enterprises), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 342 (KERALA) : 1995(2) CIVIL LJ 0660 :
1995(1) REC CRI R 0010 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0423 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0142 : 1995 (3)
CRIMES 0798 : 1995 CRL. LJ 1858 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0231 : 1995 (1) KLT 0370
#25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice not issued - Cheque
again presented and again dishonoured - Notice issued - Complaint filed on basis of second
dishonour - Complaint quashed. (Gulshan Rai Vs Darshan Lal), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 55
(P&H) : 1995 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0186 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0500 : 1995 (1)
BANKING CASES 0194 : 1995 (84) COMP. CASES 0445 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0644 : 1994 (2) KLT
0997
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Stop payment - Nowhere complainant says that
the cheque was dishonoured due to want of sufficient amount in the account - Held, complaint
rightly dismissed. (V.K.Balakrishnan Pillai Vs Abdullakutty), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670
(KERALA)
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Fine in excess of Rs.5, 000/- can be
imposed by Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate if situation so warrants
even if the power of court to impose fine is limited only upto Rs.5, 000/- by S.29 Cr.P.C.
(B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) :
1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 :
1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Liability arises only when cheque is issued to
discharge any debt or other liability - Mere issue of cheque for any other purpose like gift or
present without sufficient funds in Bank does not constitute offence. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs
Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995
(1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Prosecution of a Company for an offence u/s 138
is not prohibited by S.17 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. (B.Mohan Krishna
& Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.)
0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Exclusion of mens rea in S.138 for fastening
criminal liability strictly not arbitrary and hence not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) :
1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 :
1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso - Fails to make the payment' do not mean
`Failure without reasonable cause' - Drawer of the cheque is not entitled to lead evidence that
he had no reason to believe when he issued the cheque that it may be dishonoured on
presentment for the reasons mentioned in S.138. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India &
Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.)
0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468
: 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Chapter XVII consisting of
Ss.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions - Matters
covered by S.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of List-I (Union List.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs
Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995
(1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Initial burden lies on
complaint to show that cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt or other
liability - Then only burden shifts to the drawer of the cheque to rebut that presumption.
(B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) :
1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 :
1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Another person' - Covers payee and holder in
due course and not a mere holder or endorsee without consideration. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors.
Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL
LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 :
1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#10: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Both places, i.e. place where cheque
was handed over and place where it was dishonoured have jurisdiction. (Canbank Financial
Services Ltd. Vs Gitanjli Motors Ltd. & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 550 (DELHI)
#11: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cause of action to file complaint arises only after
expiry of 15 days from service of statutory notice period - Complaint filed within that 15 days
period - Held complaint is filed before cause of action had arisen. (Dr.Kanchana Kamalanathan
Vs Nagaraj), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 565 (MADRAS) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(MADRAS) 0123 : 1995 (84) COMP. CASES 0959 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0366
#12: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured for the second time Complaint filed on that basis - Complaint is maintainable - It is open to the payee or holder in
due course to present the cheque for payment even after his failure to file a complaint on the
basis of the first cause of action accrued to him. (Lakshmanan Vs Sivarama Krishnan), 1995(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (KERALA) : 1995(1) KLT 259 : 1995 CRL. LJ 1384 (KER.)
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Provision is not applicable as
cheque is not returned on account of insufficient funds. (Bhagat Ram Vs State of Punjab & Anr.),
1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 610 (P&H) : 1995 (1) AIJ 0180
#14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint sought to
be quashed on the plea that petitioner is not incharge of the Company or at least not being one
of its Directors - Not brought on record so far - Petitioner to bring this fact on record when the
trial starts and only then he can apply for quashing complaint against him. (Rajan Kinnerkar Vs
Eric Cordeiro), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (BOMBAY) : 1995 ISJ (BANKING) 0064 : 1994 ISJ
(BANKING) 0408 : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0800 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES
0462 : 1994 (80) COMP. CASES 0487 : 1994 BJ 0536 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0259
#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Quashing of complaint sought on the plea that
notice is beyond 15 days - Accused to raise this plea before trial Magistrate by filing a separate
application and the matter to be decided by a separate order. (Punam Sinha Vs Tarsem Goyal),
1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H)
#16: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Deliberate evasion to receive notice Amounts to constructive service of notice. (S.Ravi Kumar Vs Rajesh Kumar R.Jain), 1995(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 694 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0441 : 1996 BJ 0496 : 1995 (2) CRIMES
0195
#17: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Second presentation of cheque - If the payee
does not choose to act on the first presentation, dishonour etc. then payee can represent the
cheque and after complying with the requirements of the provision can file a complaint. (S.Ravi
Kumar Vs Rajesh Kumar R.Jain), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) BANKING
CASES 0441 : 1996 BJ 0496 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0195
the payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice. (T.K.Khungar Vs Sanjay Ghai), 1994(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 420 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0078 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0612 : 1994 (3)
CRIMES 0802 : 1995 AIHC 0636 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0639
#17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Quashing of complaint - In proceedings u/s 482
Cr.P.C. High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR or the complaint. (T.K.Khungar Vs Sanjay Ghai),
1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0078 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0612 :
1994 (3) CRIMES 0802 : 1995 AIHC 0636 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0639
#18: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused tendered the amount after receipt of
notice - Complainant refused to receive - Accused cannot be visited with any consequence
envisaged for non-payment of amount. (Pradeep Chandran Vs Nimmi), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 426 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0207 : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA)
0697 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0447 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1027 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 2768
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Mere fact that the account was short of the
amount when the cheque was drawn, is of no conse-quence. (Pradeep Chandran Vs Nimmi),
1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 426 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0207 : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0697 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0447 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1027 : 1994 CRL. L.J.
2768
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Refer to drawer' - Does not mean that cheque is
returned due to insufficiency of amount in the account. (Pradeep Chandran Vs Nimmi), 1994(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 426 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0207 : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(KERALA) 0697 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0447 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1027 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 2768
#21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - Complaint
not filed - Cheque presented again and cheque again dishonoured - Complaint filed - Held,
complaint is barred by limitation. (K.D.Sales Vs The Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills), 1994(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0103 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0138 : 1994 (1)
CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0148 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0499 : 1994 (1) MWN (DIS.CHQ.) 0233 : 1994
(1) SLJ 0449
#22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days notice
period - Complaint is premature. (Ashok Verma Vs Ritesh Aero), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
443 (P&H)
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Neither Ingredients of the
offence spelled out nor disclosed as to how the court at place `M' has jurisdiction - Complaint
and summoning order quashed. (Mohinder Singh Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H)
0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0572 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES
0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0549 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued on different dates and presented
to bank on different occasions - Last cheque dishonoured on 30.7.1990 and notice given on
23.1.1991 - Complaint does not prima facie show commission of offence. (Mohinder Singh Vs
Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 :
1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING
CASES 0572 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0549 : 1994
(1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - A power of attorney holder of a payee or a
holder in due course can make a complaint u/s 142 of the Act. (Hamsa Vs Ibrahim), 1994(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0722 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0314 :
1994 (1) BCLR 0159 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0800 : 1994(1) CRIMES 0395 : ILR 1994 (1)
KERALA 0622
#1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice as to make payment within 30 days Notice not confirming to specification of statute - Complaint amounted to abuse of the process
of Court. (M/S.Embee Textiles Limited & Anr. Vs Sadhu Ram & Co.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT
CASES 106 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0727 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0349 : 1993
MAHLJ 0630
#11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cir-cumstances under
which cheque dishonoured to be totally ignored - Pay-ment not made within prescribed time Offence is made out. (Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993
(SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 :
1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 :
1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355
: 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0306 : 1993 MAHLJ 0630
#12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Quashing of complaint - Order challenged on the
plea that a blank cheque had been deposited with the complainant on 26.7.1990 and not on
11.7.1991 the date f the cheque and that the complainant had issued the receipt on 26.7.1990
and thus prosecution is barred by limita-tion - Held, all these are matters of evidence to be
received by the Magistrate in the trial and on mere ante dated receipt without opportunity to
the complainant, the complaint cannot be thrown or rejected at this stage. (Inderjeet Bhatia Vs
State of U.P. & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (ALLAHABAD) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0086
#13: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Prosecution launched on the basis of dishonour of
cheque presented for the second time - Held cheque can be presented any number of times
within a period of six months of the date of its issuance or within the period of its validity
whichever is earlier. (MADAN MOHAN Vs K.M.MENON & OTHER), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT
CASES 35 (DELHI) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0190 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0233 : 1993 (1) BANKING
CASES 0185 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0096 : 1993 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0008 : 1993 (1) CRIMES
1167 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 2654 : 1993 (2) CCR 0155 : 1993 RLR 0119 : 1993 (1) ALL CR L R 0546 :
1993 JCC 0001 : 1993 (1) CLR 0378 : 1993 (50) DLT 0033
#14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - To avail the penal remedy
the creditor is expected to invoke the provisions of the Act Immediately - Complainant not
expected to slumber over it and to issue notice after its another alleged dishonouring. (Mrs.Rita
Khanna Vs M/s.R.S.Traders), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 488 (P&H) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING)
0417 : 1993 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0122 : 1996 (85) COMP. CASES 0446 : 1993 (2) PLR 0113 : 1993 (2)
CRLT 0237
#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheques - `Payment stopped
by drawer' - No offence is made out - Court can take cognizance only when cheque is
dishonoured either due to inadequacy of funds or due to the amount exceeding the limit.
(M/S.Embee Textiles Limited & Anr. Vs Sadhu Ram & Co.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES
106 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0727 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0349 : 1993 (1)
BANKING CASES 0068 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0394
#16: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Com-plaint not filed Cheque presented again and dishonoured - Complaint filed - Successive dishonour of the
cheque on different occasions presented within its period of validity will have to be construed as
constituting separate cause of action for the initiation of a prosecution. (Sivasankar Vs
Santhakumari), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 143 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0702 :
1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0330 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0492 : 1991 LW
(CRL.) 0481 : 1991 (1) MWN (CRL.) 0265
#17: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint dismissed - Revision against - Accused
of the offence has no right of audience. (Sivasankar Vs Santhakumari), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL
COURT CASES 143 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0702 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(MADRAS) 0330 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0492 : 1991 LW (CRL.) 0481 : 1991 (1) MWN (CRL.)
0265
#18: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Refer to drawer' - Current account statement
showing that there had never been the credit balance in the account - sufficient reasons to
proceed as there was a prima facie case. (AD.Circle Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Shankar & Ors.), 1993
(SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 210 (DELHI) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0028 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.)
0038 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0525 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0178 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0764 :
1993 BJ 0603 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 1145
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Stop payment' - Unless
there is an allegation that the cheque bounced on account of want of sufficient funds, the
complaint is not maintainable. (Ashok Vs Vasudevan Moosad), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT
CASES 258 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0712 : 1994 (1) BANK CLR 0046
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Returned with
endorsement `unclaimed' - Amounts to acceptance and receipt of notice - Complaint is
maintainable. (Sosamma Vs Rajendran), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (KERALA) : 1990
- 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0065 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0213 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0434 :
1993 (2) BCLR 0279 : 1994 (80) COMP. CASES 0503 : 1994 BJ 0659 : 1995 BJ 0275 : 1993 CRL.
L.J. 2196 : 1993 (1) KLT 0629
#21: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Any debt or other liability - Consideration of
cheque was towards price of bricks - Plaintiff admitting having receipts in support of such
supplies - Receipts not produced - No explanation given as to why receipts not produced - Non
production of the receipts leads to a presumption that either plaintiff has no such receipts or if
produced, the same would not have supported the case of plaintiff. (Milkimal Peshwani Vs
Sudhir Kumar Pradhan), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 280 (ORISSA) : 1993 (2) BANKING
CASES 0169 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0288
#22: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action Arises only on the expiry of 15 days notice period - Complaint filed before this period is not
maintainable. (Madhavan Vs Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT
CASES 320 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0135 : 1993 (82)
COMP. CASES 0753 : 1993 (1) KLT 0717
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued on 14.1.1991 for supply of food
on 20.1.1991 - Food supplied - cheques received back with endorsement `Refer to drawer' Contention of accused that when cheque was issued there was no debt or other liability which
was legally enforceable against him does not hold good. (Ramesh Kumar Handa & Ors. Vs
Willson, Manager, Coral, Tourist Complex), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 345 (P&H) : 1993
ISJ (BANKING) 0314 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0689
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietorship concern - Cheque dishonoured Complaint by employee u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and S.420 Indian Penal Code - Held,
complainant (employee of sole proprietorship firm) is neither the payee nor the holder in due
course of the cheque - Complaint u/s. 138 is not maintainable - Complaint u/s 420 IPC can be
instituted by an employee of sole proprietorship firm - Summoning order u/s 138 Negotiable
Instruments Act quashed and trial court ordered to proceed u/s 420 IPC according to law.
(U.C.Saxena Vs Madan Mohan), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996
(SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0041 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0391 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0679 : 1993 (1) PLR
0161
#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fresh cause of action
accrues on every occasion when cheque is dishonoured - Period for sending notice demanding
payment is to be reckoned from the date of receipt of intimation of last presentation. (Rakesh
Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1
(BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES
0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 : 1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 :
1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355 : 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993
(20) CRLT 0306 : 1993 MAHLJ 0630
#1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Plea that payment was stopped
prior to presentation of cheque - No ground to quash complaint. (Uggar Sain & Ors. Vs The State
of Punjab & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 463 (P&H) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0511 : 1993 (3) RCR
(CRL.) 0444 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0682
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque can be presented to Bank any number of
times within a period of six months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity,
whichever Is earlier, but complaint can be filed for offence only once either after dishonour of
cheque for first time or after last dishonour of cheque. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs
M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P)
#3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Private complaint be
made - Court can take cognizance of offence if allegations In complaint show that complainant
has complied with provisions of Ss.138 and 142 - Correctness of defence plea in reply notice to
be considered only at the trial and not at the time of taking cognizance of offence-Defence
theory available in documents filed need not be mentioned in complaint. (M/s.Syed Rasool &
Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P)
#4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filedQuashing of-such complaints are cognizable by Courts of competent jurisdiction - Application
u/s482 can be entertained by the High Court only if prima facie case is not made out on the
allegations in complaint - Non mention of defence theory in complaint not a ground for
entertaining such application-It is not for High Court to go into rival contentions - Inherent power
cannot be invoked to quash proceedings on complaint requiring enquiry and trial. (M/s.Syed
Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P)
#5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque -'Refer to Drawer'- Meaning
- In normal banking parlance, `Refer to Drawer' means that cheque is returned as funds are not
available in Drawer's account. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.),
1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P)
#6: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (b) - Notice - Addressee deliberately
evading receipt of registered notice- Amounts to constructive service of notice. (Prasanna Vs
Vijaylakshmi), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 56 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0436
#7: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque returned as 'Account closed' - No offence
is made out. (Prasanna Vs Vijaylakshmi), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 56 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ
(BANKING) 0436
#8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured-Prosecution is maintainable
only when all the ingredients of S.138 are satisfied - Notice issued mentioning the dishonour of
cheques and claiming vacant possession of flats - No demand made for payment of cheque - No
allegation of failure to pay amount within fifteen days - Ingredients of clauses (b) & (c) of S.138
not satisfied - Prosecution under section 138 of the Act is not sustainable. (Ram Kumar soni &
Anr. Vs G.Ravindranath & Anr.), 1993 CIVIL CASES 108 (A.P.)
#9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn
at place `K' and presented for collection at place `H' - Received endorsement about dishonour
of cheque at place `H' - Held, Court at place `H' where part of cause at action arose, has got
jurisdiction to try the case. (M/S Goutam T.V.Centre Vs M/s Apex Agencies, Hyderabad & Ors.),
1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 137 (A.P.) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0341 : 1993 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL
LR (A.P.) 0152 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0389 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0723 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1004 : 1992 (3) ALT
(CRL.) 0441
#10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (a) - Post dated cheque - To be treated to
have been drawn on the date it is delivered and not to be treated as drawn on the date it bears.
(Javid Ahmed Vs Syed Azmathulla Hussaini & Anr.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 152 (A.P.) : 1993
ISJ (BANKING) 0447 : 1993 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0290 : 1993 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0047 :
1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0316 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0299 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 2359 : 1992 (3) ALT (CRL.)
0477 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0071 : 1993 APLJ (CR.) 0177 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0325
#11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Private complaint filed Magistrate referring case to police for enquiry who laid charge sheet later - Magistrate taking
cognizance of case on police report - Not legal - Procedure prescribed in Chapter XV, Cr. RC.
relating to complaints to be followed. (Y.Venkateswara Rao Vs M/s Mahee Handlooms (P) Ltd.
rep. by its Managing Director & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (A.P.) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPL.)
ISJ (BANKING) 0804 : 1993 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0787 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0282 :
1993 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0189 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0217 : 1994 (79) COMP. CASES 0206 : 1992 (3) ALT
(CRL.) 0073 : 1993 (1) CCR 0237 : 1993 CRLJ 2362 : 1992 APLJ (CRL.) 0327
#12: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Death of complainant - In appropriate cases the
Magistrate can grant permission to the son of the deceased complainant to proceed with the
complaint. (Jayaranjan Vs Jayaranjan), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 718 (KERALA) : 1993
ISJ (BANKING) 0328 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0574 : 1995 (82) COMP. CASES 0629 : 1995 BJ
0703 : 1993 (2) CRIMES 0666 : 1992(2) KLT 586
#13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused having conceded to make payment but
not paying and filing the petition to quash criminal proceedings against him - Amounts to abuse
of process of Court-Not entitled to relief under section 482 Cr.P.C. (M.Venkateswara Rao Vs
Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A.P.) : 1993 (1) BANKING
CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0468
#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured with endorsement `Refer to
Drawer' - Inference cannot be drawn that cheque is returned on account of insufficiency of funds
- Cheque might have been returned for various reasons - Offence u/s.138 is not made out.
(Union Roadways (P) Ltd. Vs Shan Ramanlal), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (A.P.) : 1992 ISJ
(BANKING) 0425 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0216 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0271 : 1993 (76) COMP.
CASES 0315 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0215 : 1992 (1) AWR 0372
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Debt or liability - Not necessary that it should be
due from the drawer - Cheque can be issued for discharge of another man's debt or liability.
(Alexander Vs Joseph Chacko), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 533 (KERALA) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0784 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0388 : 1993(2) KLT 326
#16: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque returned with the endorsement `Account
closed' - Amounts to an offence under section 138 of the Act. (Japahari Vs Priya), 1993 CIVIL
COURT CASES 563 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0557 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0642 : 1994
(1) BCLR 0294 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0818 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0379 : 1993 (2) KLT 0141
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Account closed.' - Closure of account on a date
antecedent to the date of cheque - It is open to the party to show that the cheque was drawn on
date antecedent to the date which the cheque bears. (Japahari Vs Priya), 1993 CIVIL COURT
CASES 563 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0557 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0642 : 1994 (1)
BCLR 0294 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0818 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0379 : 1993 (2) KLT 0141
#18: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay in filing complaint - Delay can be
condoned. (Janardhan Mohapatra Vs Saroj Kumar Choudhry), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605
(ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES
0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1751 : 1993(6) OCR 242
#19: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint with a prayer to take cognizance or to
convict an accused is a petition which term comes within the definition `application' as used in
S.29 (2) Limitation Act and therefore S.5 Limitation Act applies. (Janardhan Mohapatra Vs Saroj
Kumar Choudhry), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 : 1993 (3)
RCR (CRL.) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1751 :
1993(6) OCR 242
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Firm which issued the cheques not made an
accused in the complaint - Can be impleaded even after the expiry of the period of one month
from the date of cause of action envisaged in S.138 of the act. (Playwood House Vs Wood Craft
Products Ltd.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0650 : 1994 (3)
RCR (CRL.) 0311 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0182 : 1997 (88) COMP.
CASES 0565 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0434 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0543 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0604 : 1993
MWN 0140
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured - Jurisdiction Primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint - Cause of action arises
at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of money, i.e. the place
where the bank is located or the place where the cheque was issued or delivered - Court within
whose jurisdiction any of such place falls has jurisdiction to try the offence. (Muraleedharan Vs
Pareed), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1992(1) KLT 59
#22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Cause of action arises at
the place where the cheque is issued or the place where the cheque is presented for collection
or the place where the cheque is dishonoured. (Pobathi Agencies Vs State of Karnataka), 1992
CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA)
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Returned unpaid as `payment stopped
by the drawer' - Not an offence as envisaged by S.138 - Offence only when cheque bounces due
to insufficient balance in the account. (1990 Civil Court CAses 832 (P&H) followed). (Rama
Gupta & others Vs M/s.Bakeman's Home Products Ltd.), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 381 (P&H) :
1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0269 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0141 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0035 : 1993 (1)
BCLR 0279 : 1994 (79) COMP. CASES 0473 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 1047 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0744 : 1992
(2) CCR 1484 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0032 : 1992 (2) SLJ 1231 : 1992 (2) ALLCRLR 0015 : 1993 (20)
CRLT 0184
#24: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque dishonoured - Proprietary concern Complaint against - Not maintainable - Complaint is maintainable against the proprietor only.
(Sri Sivasakthi Industries Vs Arihant Metal Corporation), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 388
(MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0263 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1992 (74) COMP. CASES
0749 : 1993 BJ 0184 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0374 : 1992 LW (CRL.) 0347 : 1992(36) MLJ 102
#25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - There is no provision in the Act that
Company has also to be prosecuted alongwith person who issued cheque on behalf of the
Company - Complaint is maintainable when filed only against the person who issued the
cheque. (M.Venkateswara Rao Vs Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES
238 (A.P.) : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0468
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Refer to drawer' - Bank
memo not mentioning insufficiency of funds - Ingredients of offence u/s.138 of the Act stated in
the complaint - Whether there were sufficient funds in the Bank or not being a question of fact,
cannot be gone into in a petition u/s.482 Cr.P.C. (A.R.Kumbhat Vs Peejay Rubber Industries Ltd.
& Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 82 (KERALA) : 1996 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA)
0091 : 1996 (2) CIVIL LJ 0469 : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0208 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0240 :
1995 (2) BCLR 0577 : 1996 BJ 0257 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0363 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 3828 : 1995 (4) CCR
0049
#2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - For the purpose of Cl.(a) of
the proviso it is to be considered to have drawn on the date it is delivered and not on the date it
bears. (Gulshan Rai Vs Anil Kumar), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 463 (P&H) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING)
0208 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0218 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0301 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0685 :
1992 (2) CRIMES 0810 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0495
#3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Company - Complainant
has to allege in the complaint against the company that the offence has been committed by its
Directors, Managers et c. with their consent or connivance or neglect on their part - No such
allegation - Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Harbhajan Singh Kalra Vs State of
Haryana and another), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (P&H) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0021 : 1992
(1) RCR (CRL.) 0169 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0345 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0371 : 1992 BJ
0692 : 1992 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0565 : 1992 (1) PLR 0599
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued to Company
and not to directors - Company not arrayed as accused - Notice to company cannot be deemed
to be a notice to the Directors - Issue of notice to the Director of the Company was required as
the Director may have in order to avoid his criminal prosecution made payment of the
disonoured cheque from the Private source. (Harbhajan Singh Kalra Vs State of Haryana and
another), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (P&H) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0021 : 1992 (1) RCR (CRL.)
0169 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0345 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0371 : 1992 BJ 0692 : 1992 (1)
CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0565 : 1992 (1) PLR 0599
#5: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque issued on behalf of Company by its
Director - Company is maker of the cheque - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued to the
Company is sufficient - Separate notice to the Director is not required. (Dilip Kumar Jaiswal Vs
Debapriya Banerjee), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (CALCUTTA) : 1992(2) KLT 35
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Payment stopped by drawer' - No averment in
the complaint t hat bank dishonoured the cheque for want of adequate funds in the account of
the drawer - S.138 is not attracted. (Bhageerathy Vs Beena), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 595
(KERALA): 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0386 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 3946
#7: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Petitioner Managing Director of two companies
M&S - Liability of company to pay - Cheque however issued by company M who has no liability
to pay the amount - Dishonour of cheque - Offence is committed by M. (Krishna Bai Vs Arti
Press), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 606 (MADRAS)
BANKING CASES 0192 : 1996 (2) CCR 0706 : 1996 (1) MAH LJ 0164 : 1996 AIHC 0330
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Magistrate of
the first class is empowered to impose a fine exceeding Rs.5, 000/-for offence u/s.138 of the Act.
(Sahadevan Vs Sreedharan), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA)
#20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partner - Whether ceased
to be a partner - Held, it is not the relevant question which can be gone into in the proceedings
under Section 482 of the Code. (Ajay Narain Aggarwal Vs Firm Madan Lal Rajinder Prasad &
Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 264 (P&H) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0567 : 1996 CRL. L.J.
2022
#21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Revision against - Dismissed by Sessions Court -Second revision in the High Court - Not
maintainable. (Ajay Narain Aggarwal Vs Firm Madan Lal Rajinder Prasad & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 264 (P&H) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0567 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 2022
#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque returned with
endorsement `Refer to drawer' or `Instructions for stoppage of payment' or `Stamp exceeds
arrangement' - Amounts to dishonour of cheque. (M/s.Electronics Trade & Technology
Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s.Indian Technologist & Engineers (Electronics) Pvt.Ltd.),
1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (S.C.) : 1996(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 99 (S.C.) : 1996(3) RCR
(CRL.) 0593 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1996 BJ 0408 : 1996 (3) CRIMES 0082 : 1996 CRL.
L.J. 1692 : 1996 (4) CCR 0083 : 1996 (2) SCC 0739 : 1996 SCC (CRL.) 0454 : AIR 1996 SC 2339 :
1996 (1) JT 0643 : 1996 (1) LW (CRL.) 0325
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - Shall be deemed to be
drawn on the date it bears. (Anita Vs Anil K.Mehara), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 343 (P&H)
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Amount of loan due from accused - Issued 10
post dated cheques - Cheques dishonoured - One complaint in respect of all cheques is
maintainable. (Anita Vs Anil K.Mehara), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 343 (P&H)
#25: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused purchasing cutting machine from
complainant and issuing post dated cheque - In case of any dispute matter to be referred to
arbitration - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act - Plea of
accused that machinery was defective and matter was to be referred to Arbitration - Plea not
tenable - Arbitration clause does not cover a criminal offence nor Section 34 Arbitration Act is
attracted to criminal proceedings. (Prabir Roy Vs State of West Bengal), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 41 (CALCUTTA) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0103 : 1996 (2) BANKING
CASES 0308 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0370 : 1996 BJ 0387 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0454
#1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Territorial jurisdiction For discharging the debt the petitioners had to find out his creditors - Since the creditors had
office at Pehowa, the Courts there had territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. (M.M.Malik Vs
Prem Kumar Goyal), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (P&H) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0535 : 1991(2)
REC CRI R 0015 : 1991 (2) BANKING CASES 0484 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0496 : 1992 (73) COMP. CASES
0425 : 1992 BJ 0412 : 1991 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0157 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 2594 : 1991 (1)
PLR 0554 : 1991 (2) CLR 0366 : 1991 (18) CRLT 0097
#2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint
sought that cheque was got issued when petitioner was taken in police custody - This plea not
taken by the petitioner in reply to the legal notice - Held, no case is made out of quashing of
complaint. (Mahabir Parsad Jindal & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 432 (P&H)
#3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Questions of fact or mixed question of law and
facts - Cannot be decided merely on the basis of allegations in the petition and affidavits.
(M/s.Garg Forgings & Castings Ltd.& Ors. Vs M/s.Steel Strips Ltd.Chandigarh), 1996(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 588 (P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0799 : 1996 BJ 0554 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0559
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Quashing of complaint - Cheque presented
through Bank at place `L' - Complaint filed at place `C' alleging that order for supply of goods
was placed at place `C' - Remedy available to the petitioner by approaching Judicial Magistrate
that process should not have been issued against him not availed - Held, once this remedy is
available to the petitioners High Court is reluctant to invoke its inherent powers u/s.482 Cr.P.C.
which are to be exercised with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. (M/s.Garg Forgings &
Castings Ltd.& Ors. Vs M/s.Steel Strips Ltd.Chandigarh), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 588 (P&H) :
1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0799 : 1996 BJ 0554 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0559
#5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant seeking examination of Advocate
who sent the reply to notice - Allowed - However, it will be open to the respondent to contend
that this reply was not sent at his instance. (Shiv Kumar Verma Vs Chaman Lal), 1996(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 598 (P&H)
#6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Name of witness sought to be examined not
mentioned in the list annexed to the complaint - Not a ground for not permitting the
complainant to examine this witness. (Shiv Kumar Verma Vs Chaman Lal), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 598 (P&H)
#7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment - No ground to quash the
proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. - Such a plea can be taken before trial Court. (Minakshi Goyal
Vs S.K.Sharma), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (P&H) : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0165 : 1996 (2)
BANKING CASES 0020
#8: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant an executor under the Will of his
father - Cannot be tread as the holder in due course. (Koya Moideen Vs Hariharan), 1996(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 382 (KERALA)
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Payment countermanded by a stop
memo - It is of no consequence - Proceedings under the Act can be initiated. (Calcutta Sanitary
Wares Vs Jacob), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (KERALA) : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0347 :
1991(1) KLT 0269
#10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Returned unpaid as `Payment stopped
by the drawer' - not an offence as envisaged by S.138 - Offence only when cheque bounces due
to insufficient balance in the account. (Abdul Samad Managing Director Vs Satya Narayan
Mahawar), 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 832 (P&H) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0134 : 1990 (2) CLR 0338
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - No complaint filed Cheque presented for the second time and again dishonoured - Prosecution launched on the
basis of second dishonour - Prosecution launched is valid. (Mahadevan Sunil Kumar Vs Bhadran),
1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (KERALA) : 1991 (1) BANKING CASES 0612 : 1991 (1) BCLR 0211 :
1992 (74) COMP. CASES 0805 : 1993 BJ 0569 : 1991 (1) KLT 0651 : 1991 (1) KLJ 0335
#12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence u/s 138 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments
Act - Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings - Question of fact involved relating to
alleged offence viz whether the accused has to pay the money to the complainant and whether
he had issued the cheque as well as other questions of fact had to be established on evidence There are no grounds to quash the proceedings. (P.T.V. Ramanujachari Vs Giridharilal Rathi &
Anr.), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (A.P.) : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0591 : 1992 BJ 0388
#13: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso Cl. (a) - Post dated cheque - For the
purpose of Cl. (a) of the proviso has to be considered to have been drawn on the date it bears
and not on the date it is delivered. (Manoj K.Seth Vs Fernadez), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 637
(KERALA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0449 : 1991 (2) BANKING CASES 0318 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0385 :
1992 BJ 0394 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 3253 : 1991 (3) ILR (KER.) 0621 : 1991 (2) KLT 0065 :
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - No complaint filed Cheque presented for the second time and again dishonoured - Prosecution launched on the
basis of second dishonour - Not valid. (1991 Civil Court Cases 512 (Kerala) overruled).
(Kumaresan Vs Ameerappa), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 661 (KERALA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING)
0459 : 1991(3) RCR (CRL.) 0172 : 1991(2) BCLR 0196 : 1993(1) BCLR 0164 : 1991(74) COMP.
CASES 0848 : 1992(1) CRIMES 0023 : 1991(1) KLT 0797 : 1992 MWN (CRL.) 0008
of loan - Failure to produce even loan agreement - Presumption stands rebutted - To rebut presumption accused need not
to lead positive evidence - Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record. (Raman Finance Corporation
Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB)
#9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issuance of cheque in discharge of legal
liability - Presumption as to - Rebuttable - To rebut presumption it is not necessary to lead positive evidence Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record - For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to
raise a probable defence - Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied
upon. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB)
#10: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures admitted - Held, once
signatures in the impugned cheques were admitted then there is presumption u/s 139 of the Act. (A.B.M.Raja Sah Vs
B.M.S.Srinivasa Sah), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (MADRAS) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402
(MADRAS)
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttable presumption Presumption that cheque was issued for a debt or liability is in favour of holder of cheque - This is a rebuttable
presumption which can be rebutted only by the person who drew the cheque. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H)
#12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - The rebuttal
would not have to be conclusively established - However, evidence must be adduced in support of the defence that the
Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable - Standard of
reasonability is that of a prudent man. (M/s.Coldspot Vs M/s.Naik Hotels & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 070
(BOMBAY)
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Presumption Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused
can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption
could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through
the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was
issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that
existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The
standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally
upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 537 (BOMBAY)
#14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Failure on part of
complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion
that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY)
#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued against loan - Loan
denied - No proof of lending money - Even month or year of loan not disclosed - Held, when complainant does not place
on record any material of lending money then it is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut the presumption
available in favour of the complainant - Accused not guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (G.Veeresham Vs S.Shiva
Shankar & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (A.P.)
#16: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharging of liability - Blank signed
cheque given as security not taken back - No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability
was discharged - Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable.
(K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA)
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Available only when cheque is received by holder Cheque can be received in many ways i.e it can be handed over, it could be as a finder of a lost or misplaced cheque, it
could be taken away by force, it could be by committing theft - Held, for drawing presumption u/s 139 of the Act, Court
must be satisfied that the holder of the cheque 'received' the cheque by entitlement and that he did not procure it by any
other means. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 :
2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875
#18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Presumption available is as to
issuance of cheque for discharge of any debt or other liability - Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of
presumption u/s 139 of the Act. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983
(S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC
1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2)
SCC(CRI) 166
#19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Accused need not
examine himself to rebut the presumption - He may discharge the burden on the basis of materials already brought on
record. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 :
2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008
AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166
#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of proof
so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is `preponderance of probabilities' - Inference of preponderance of
probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the
circumstances upon which he relies. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983
(S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC
1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2)
SCC(CRI) 166
#21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Question as to
whether presumption stood rebutted or not has to be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record Stepping into the witness box by the appellant is not imperative - Background fact and the conduct of the parties together
with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya
G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 :
2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR
219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166
#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Complainant not coming to Court with
clean hands and his conduct not that of a prudent man - Accused thus discharges his burden to rebut the presumption
available u/s 139 of the Act - Order of acquittal upheld. (John K.John Vs Tom Varghese & Anr.), 2007(3) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 655 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 974
(S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 278 : 2008 CRILJ 434 : 2007 AIRSCW 6736 : 2008 CLC 214 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 129 : 2007(12)
SCC 714 : 2007(12) SCALE 333 : 2007(7) SUPREME 484
#23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of proof on accused is only mere
preponderance of probability - Where in a case complainant fails to prove that he had means to advance a huge amount
as he himself had been borrowing money from others, the burden placed on accused stands discharged inspite of the fact
that accused himself having not been examined as a witness - Accused acquitted. (K.Prakashan Vs P.K.Surenderan),
2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 429 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 371 (S.C.)
#24: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Available only qua the purpose for which the cheque
is received i.e for discharge of a debt or liability - Court cannot presume that cheque is issued/executed/drawn by the
accused. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 :
2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Court is not bound to adjudicate on the
liability under the cheque in dispute - However, when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved, Court has to
consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 642 (KERALA)
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards time barred debt - Once
the cheque is issued, accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt - Time barred debt is also
valid consideration. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763
(KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA)
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Even if the signature in the
cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed by the accused. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan
& Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR
2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875
#3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course - Means any person who
for consideration became the possessor of promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer or the payee
or indorsee thereof - `A' gave loan to `B' - Bank purchased cheque from `B' - `B' made an endorsement in favour of Bank
- Bank becomes holder in due course - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint against `A' maintainable. (Bhartiya Khand &
Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 ; 2006(65) ALLLR
16 SOC
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Blank cheque - It cannot be presumed that an implied authority is given
to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt etc. - There must be allegation in complaint and
evidence that blank cheque was issued with implied authority to holder to fill up the same. (Kamalammal Vs
C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168
(KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2)
RECCIVR 875
#5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred debt - Loan transaction taking place
in 1994 and cheque for repayment of loan issued for the year 1999 - Loan amount became time barred in the year 1997 Held, there is no legal bar for the debtor agreeing to pay the time barred debt - No fresh consideration is required for
debtor's promise to pay the time barred debt - Cheque constitutes an agreement or promise by the debtor to pay the time
barred debt - Drawer held guilty of offence. (H.Narasimha Rao Vs Venkataram R.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670
(KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 975 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) KAR LJ 238 : ILR 2006 KAR
4242
#6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued to
retiring partner - Specific plea of accused that complainant is still a partner - Evidence as to retirement from partnership
not adduced - When there is failure to prove factum of retirement from partnership the only reasonable conclusion could
be that there was no existing liability as on date of issuance of cheque - No interference in order of acquittal.
(K.A.Prakash Rao Vs U.Indira Devi & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.P.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 518 (A.P.)
#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - It is for drawer to rebut
presumption - In absence of rebuttal evidence, it is to be presumed that cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other
liability. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA)
#8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Cheque issued towards
investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes - Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not
issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability - Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process
cannot be faulted with. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Bhave & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY)
#9: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act,
Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The burden
of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman Vs State
of Kerala & Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA)
#10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of proof in
discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability - Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought
on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon - Burden of proof on
accused is not as high as that of the prosecution. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 023 (S.C.)
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are
rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.)
#12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Denial of issuance of cheque - Held, once
cheque is duly singed by accused, mere denial of issuing cheque is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available u/s
139 of the Act. (J.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ
393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 :
CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007
CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1)
RECCIVR 451
#23: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Cheque issued to discharge
liability under a promissory note - When presumption u/s 139 can be drawn it is superfluous and unnecessary to draw or
bank on the presumption u/s 118 of the Act - As the graver presumption of existence of consideration of a specified
variety, is available it is not necessary at all to go back to the presumption u/s 118(a) of the Act. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs
Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077
(KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3)
KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451
#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Rebuttal does not have to be conclusively
established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the court must either
believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable - The standard of reasonability being that
of the 'prudent man'. (M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS
411 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ
4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.)
317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 :
2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS
450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR
CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD
LW (CRI.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3)
RCR(CRI.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 : 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.)
30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39
#25: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Rebuttal of presumption - Onus is not as heavy as that
of prosecution and may be compared with defendant in Civil Case - Rebuttal of presumption contemplated u/s 139
requires only probable defence and standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings &
Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Bhojarajan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS)
#1: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - `Stop payment' - Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a
presumption under Section 139 must follow and the same consequences would follow where the drawer stops the
payment after issue of the cheque. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0767
#2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque given as collateral security - Cheque
was never meant to be deposited - If such a cheque is deposited and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability.
(Goa Handicrafts, Rural & Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s.Samudra Ropes Pvt. Ltd.),
2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1009 (BOMBAY)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 43-- - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil
case - Civil case not withdrawn - Held, when cheque is issued for some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet
another promise i.e. withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then
cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of
the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala),
2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ
3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1)
CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.) 2005(3) KER. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 562
#4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Partnership firm - Dissolution - One partner issued cheque to the other
towards his liability - Presumption is that cheque was for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
(Abdul Hameed Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 194 (RAJASTHAN)
#5: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Legal debt and liability - Agreement to sell - Accused making part
payment and issuing cheques of balance consideration - Accused put in possession of land and given Power of Attorney
to do all acts and deeds in respect of land - Sale transaction not completed - Dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient
funds - Accused guilty of offence under S.138 - Act of complainant amounted to sale of property within meaning of S.54
of Transfer of Property act - It would be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of liability and not as security.
(V.Sampath Vs Praveen Chandra V.Shah), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (MADRAS)
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Debt and liability - Payment stopped on the ground that cheques were
not supported by consideration - Under Section 139 it has to be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of debt
or other liability - Burden of proof is on accused that cheques were not supported by consideration. (K.I.George Vs
Muhammed Master), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (KERALA)
#7: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Loan taken of Rs.30 lakhs and promissory note executed - Amount not
paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding - On repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards
discharge of loan amount - Cheque dishonoured - Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only
as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque, there was no existing liability - It is for accused to rebut
presumption contained in S.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited Vs M.Mal
Reddy), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (MADRAS)
#8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section
139 must follow - Merely because the drawer issues a notice to the drawee or to the Bank for stoppage of the payment it
will not preclude an action under Section 138 of the Act by the drawee or the holder of a cheque in due course.
(Mahendra A.Dadia Vs State of Maharasthra), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0433 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0133 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4361 : 1999 (5) BCR 0124 :
1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0351
#9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments
effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988. (K.K.Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors.), 2003(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI.)
BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6)
BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ
838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0497
#10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - 'Debt or liability' - There is presumption in favour of holder of a cheque that
the cheque is regarding discharge of the liability - Applicant can rebut the presumption by producing evidence. (Shailesh
Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P.), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (ALLAHABAD)
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Cheque issued on specific understanding that the same can be presented and
encashed if the entire loan amount not otherwise paid before the date of cheque - Held, cheque was issued for the
discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. (Thekkan & Co. Vs Anitha), 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13
(KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 65 (KERALA)
#12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Cheque issued - It is to be presumed that it is issued in discharge of a debt or
other liability - This presumption can be rebutted by adducing evidence and the burden of proof is on the person who
wants to rebut the presumption. (Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS
273 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S.C.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S.C.) : AIR 2004
SC 408 : 2004 CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC 235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 : 2004 CLC 51 :
2004(1) ALD(CRI.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 : 2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 : 2004(13) ALL IND CAS 741 : 2004(1)
ALT(CRI.) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR 471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR 733 : 2004(1) BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.)
660 : 2004(2) BOM LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI LR 113 : 2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI.) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 :
2003(117) COM CAS 781 : 2004(2) COM LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 248 : 2004(1)
CRIMES 81 (SC) : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13) IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC 451 :
2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI.) 26 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 348 : 2004(27) OCR 476 : 2004(1)
PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7) SLT 247 : 2003(9) SCALE 791 : 2004 SCC(CRI.) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM
LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME 490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC) 525 : 2004(1) TNLR 102
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption u/s 139 - Is rebuttable presumption - To rebut the presumption
it is not necessary to lead evidence as the accused can rebut the presumption on the basis of the complaint as well as
evidence led by the complainant himself. (Ramesh Ratilal Tanna Vs Gautam Jayantilal Nagarwala), 2002(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 10 (BOMBAY)
#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - `Legally enforceable debt' - Court has to draw a presumption that the drawer
of the cheque has issued the same for legally enforceable debt or liability, unless the contrary is proved. (The Waterbase
Ltd. Vs Karuthuru Ravendra), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (A.P.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 676
(A.P.)
#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Certain payments made after dishonour of cheque - Witness not examined to
prove Ex.D-1 to D-6 - As such it is difficult to come to a positive conclusion that amount paid subsequent to the date of
issuance of the cheque pertains to the discharge of the cheque amount only. (The Waterbase Ltd. Vs Karuthuru
Ravendra), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (A.P.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 676 (A.P.)
#16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Cheque - Presumption is that it was issued towards discharge of debt or
liability - Presumption is rebuttable - Onus is on accused - Denial by accused is not sufficient to shift the burden on
complainant - Accused has to prove by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. (K.N.Beena Vs
Muniyappan), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 621 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 635 (S.C.) : 2002(1) ISJ
(BANKING) 0250 : 2001(8) SCC 458 : 2001(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 701 : 2001 CRI LJ 1781 : AIR 2001 SC 2895 :
2005 SCC (CRI.) 0014 : 2001 DCR 47 (SC) : 2001 CRI. LJ 4745
#17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Issuance of cheque and signatures
on cheque admitted - Presumption is there that cheque was issued towards `legally enforceable debt' - However, this
presumption is rebuttable for which accused had to produce rebuttable evidence - Mere explanation is not sufficient Accused must give probable or acceptable defence to rebut the presumption. (Smt.Usha Suresh Vs R.V.Shashidaran),
2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 514 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 723 (KARNATAKA)
#18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - 'Debt or liability' - Once a cheque is issued by the drawer presumption u/s
139 in favour of holder follows - Drawer has opportunity to rebut the presumption during trial. (Chand Rattan Newar Vs
Shayam Rattan Newar), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (P&H) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0138
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - `Debt or other liability' - There is presumption under S.139 that unless the
contrary is proved the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in S.138 for the discharge in
whole or in part of any debt or other liability. (George Vs Muhammed), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 588
(KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0643 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0396 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0664 : ILR 1992 (2)
KERALA 0833
#20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption is to be drawn that cheque was issued towards discharge of
antecedent liability and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by adducing evidence to establish that he did
not issue the cheque towards discharge of any antecedent liability. (Dr.K.G.Ramachandra Gupta & Anr. Vs
Dr.G.Adinarayana), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (KARNATAKA)
#21: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Provision gives rise to presumption of fact that the cheque was given in
discharge of a debt or liability legally recoverable. (DSA Engineers (Bombay) & Ors. Vs M/s U.E.M. India Pvt.Ltd. &
Anr.), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI)
#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138, 118-- - Cheque - Signature on the cheque admitted - Can be legally
inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears - S.139 enjoins on the
Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability - The burden is on the
accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 :
(1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ
4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 :
1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW
(CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558
#23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - In view of the express provision of S.139, a
presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in S.138, for the
discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved. (Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Narender & Ors.), 1999(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 704 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0348 :
1999(1) SCC 113 : 2000(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 104
#24: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Legal liability to pay - Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground
that there was no legal liability to pay - No ground to quash the process - Issuing of process is an interim order and not a
judgment - Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no
offence for which the accused could be tried. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.), 1999(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0767
#25: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 118-- - S.118 creates a presumption that drawer of a cheque is a debtor in
respect of the amount of the cheque and drawee is the creditor - S.139 creates a corresponding presumption in favour of
the holder of the cheque - Presumption created by Ss.118 and 139 are only permissible presumptions in law from
different perspectives - Both presumptions are rebuttable. (Arvind Manekalal Tailor Vs State of Gujarat), 2001(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 99 (GUJARAT)
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, Union List,
Entries 45, 46 - Words `Banking, Bills of Exchange, Cheques, Promissory Notes and other like instruments' - Occurring
in Entries Nos.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude - Held, Parliament has
power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayuri
Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES
0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.138 to 142 not ultra vires
the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions - Matters covered by S.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of ListI (Union List.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) :
1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT
(CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Initial burden lies on complaint to show that
cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt or other liability - Then only burden shifts to the drawer of the
cheque to rebut that presumption. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 :
1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Holder of cheque-There is a presumption that the cheque received is for
discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability and the accused is required to dislodge this presumption.
(Ganesh Sukhlal Joshi Vs M.A.Bharti), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (BOMBAY)
#5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Legally enforceable liability - Complainant is bound to discharge the
initial burden cast upon him that the cheque was given by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable liability Complainant failing to prove satisfactorily that he has sufficient capacity to lend the amount of Rs.1, 25, 000/- by way of
cheque and his failure to prove that amount was actually drawn by the accused - Held, accused cannot be punished under
S.138 of the Act. (A.Bhoosanrao Vs Purushothamdas Pantani), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (A.P.)
#6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Accused on appearance sought dismissal of complaint on ground that
cheque had not been issued against existing liability - This question is a matter of evidence - Trial Court should have
afforded an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence. (Kamboj Gram Udyog Samiti Vs Dhillon Bricks Works),
1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050
#7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - `Holder' - Not intended to cover all kinds of holders - It operates only in
favour of payee and holder in due course. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J.
0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Rebuttable presumption - Not applicable to a holder of cheque without
consideration. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) :
1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT
(CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138-- - Failure to prove the case to attract the provisions of S.138 - There is no
question to rebut the presumption under S.139 of the Act. (Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza), 1996(2)
CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY)
#10: PATNA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption in favour of holder of cheque - There is presumption in favour
of the holder of the cheque that he received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt or other liability
unless contrary is proved. (Binod Sarawgi Vs State of Bihar), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 444 (PATNA) : 1999 (2)
CIVIL LJ 0031 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0181
#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a)
are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.)
#2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Failure on part of
complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion
that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY)
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused alleging misuse of
cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should
be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569
(S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010
#4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Presumption Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused
can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption
could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through
the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was
issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that
existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The
standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally
upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 537 (BOMBAY)
#5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Presumption available u/ss 138, 139 & 118 are all
rebuttable presumptions. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765
(BOMBAY)
#6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 118-- - S.118 creates a presumption that drawer of a cheque is a debtor
in respect of the amount of the cheque and drawee is the creditor - S.139 creates a corresponding presumption in favour
of the holder of the cheque - Presumption created by Ss.118 and 139 are only permissible presumptions in law from
different perspectives - Both presumptions are rebuttable. (Arvind Manekalal Tailor Vs State of Gujarat), 2001(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 99 (GUJARAT)
#7: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Cheque issued to
discharge liability under a promissory note - When presumption u/s 139 can be drawn it is superfluous and unnecessary
to draw or bank on the presumption u/s 118 of the Act - As the graver presumption of existence of consideration of a
specified variety, is available it is not necessary at all to go back to the presumption u/s 118(a) of the Act.
(P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR
874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - Failure to prove the case to attract the provisions of S.138 There is no question to rebut the presumption under S.139 of the Act. (Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza),
1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY)
#2: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - Legal liability to pay - Complaint sought to be quashed on the
ground that there was no legal liability to pay - No ground to quash the process - Issuing of process is an interim order
and not a judgment - Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there
is no offence for which the accused could be tried. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.),
1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0767
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - `Debt or other liability' - In view of the express provision of
S.139, a presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in S.138,
for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved. (Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Narender & Ors.),
1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 704 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING)
0348 : 1999(1) SCC 113 : 2000(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 104
#4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Cheque - Signature on the cheque admitted - Can be
legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears - S.139 enjoins
on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability - The burden is
on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R
309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ
4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 :
1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW
(CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - Cheque - Presumption is that it was issued towards discharge
of debt or liability - Presumption is rebuttable - Onus is on accused - Denial by accused is not sufficient to shift the
burden on complainant - Accused has to prove by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. (K.N.Beena
Vs Muniyappan), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 621 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 635 (S.C.) : 2002(1)
ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 2001(8) SCC 458 : 2001(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 701 : 2001 CRI LJ 1781 : AIR 2001 SC 2895 :
2005 SCC (CRI.) 0014 : 2001 DCR 47 (SC) : 2001 CRI. LJ 4745
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge liability
under a promissory note - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge
of a liability already existing under the promissory note. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007
CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1)
RECCIVR 451
#7: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Court is not bound to adjudicate on the
liability under the cheque in dispute - However, when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved, Court has to
consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 642 (KERALA)
#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Cheque - Signature on the cheque admitted - Can be
legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears - S.139 enjoins
on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability - The burden is
on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.), 1999(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 385 (S.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R
309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ
4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 :
1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW
(CRI.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge liability
under a promissory note - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge
of a liability already existing under the promissory note. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007
CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1)
RECCIVR 451
#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Power of Attorney holder can initiate criminal proceedings on
behalf of his Principal. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Resigned before
cheques were issued - However, From No.32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies much after the cheques were
issued - Held, the effect of delayed presentation before the Registrar of companies can only be decided after parties lead
evidence - Order quashing proceedings set aside. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.),
2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - A person in the
commercial world having a transaction with a company is entitled to presume that the Directors of the company are in
charge of the affairs of the company - If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the
company, it is for the Directors to establish it at the trial. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu &
Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC
3273
#4: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of Company,
Chairman and Vice-President - Petition by Vice-President for quashing of proceedings - Specific plea in complaint that
Vice-President negotiated with the complainant in respect of the transaction and held out assurances that liability would
be cleared - It will be decided during trial if Vice-President has acted on behalf of company i.e. accused No.1 or not Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Devender Raina Vs State & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 181
(DELHI)
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Consisting of two
partners - Cheque signed by both the partners - Complaint against firm and both the partners - No pleading in complaint
that at the time the offence was committed both the partners were incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of
business of the firm - Held, when complaint is in relation to a firm of which there are only two partners, it is sufficient
when it is pleaded that the firm has two partners who are also arrayed as accused persons. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs
V.A.Anty & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA)
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Pleading as to
requirement of S.141 of the Act - Held, complaint has to be read as a whole - If the substance of the allegations made in
the complaint fulfills the requirements of S.141 of the Act then complaint has to proceed and is required to be tried with In construing a complaint, a hypertechnical approach is not to be adopted. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty &
Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA)
#7: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Composite notice of more than
one cheque is valid. (Subhash Sahni Vs M/s.Auro Spinning Mills), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (H.P.)
#8: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Being Director
of the company a Director is not jointly and severally liable for the acts of the company - No averment in complaint that
at the time when offence was committed accused No.2 to 7 were incharge and were responsible to the company for the
conduct of the business of the company - Complaint against accused 2 to 7 quashed. (Anoop Jhalani Vs State & Anr.),
2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 350 (DELHI)
#9: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Accused summoned being
Directors of Company - Defence of accused that they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company - Held, that
complainant had pleaded in his complaint that petitioners were directors of the company and were in-charge and
responsible for the affairs and business of the Company - No ground to quash the complaint. (R.L.Verma & Ors. Vs
J.K.Verma & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 084 (DELHI)
#10: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company - Directors - Sleeping
director - If any Director of the company claims that he was not the person looking after the affairs of the company this
fact has to be proved by him by leading cogent evidence before the trial Court - A creditor is not supposed to know are
the sleeping directors or actively involved directors in the management of the company - Resignation of the petitioner
from the company is a defence of the petitioner which he can take before the trial Court - Petition to quash summoning
order dismissed. (Bharat Poonam Chand Shah Vs Dominors Printech India Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 792 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (DELHI)
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint against
Chairman, Joint Managing Director and three Directors - Allegation that they were officers and responsible for the affairs
of the company - It is sufficient compliance within the meaning of S.141 of the Act - Complaint cannot be quashed on
the ground that there is no averment they were incharge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the
company. (Paresh P.Rajda Vs State of Maharashtra), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 413 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 253 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 192 (S.C.) : 2008(2) KLT 983 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC
2357
#12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - An allegation in
the complaint that the named accused are Directors of the company itself would usher in the element of their acting for
and on behalf of the company and of their being in charge of the company. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs
Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056
(S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship firm - Complaint filed
against proprietorship firm through its proprietor - Complaint is maintainable so long as the identification of human
individual behind the curtain is possible without any mistake. (Natesha Securities Vs Vinayak Waman Mokashi & Anr.),
2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY)
#14: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Additional accused Averments unspecific and general - No particular role assigned to petitioner - Summoning order concerning petitioner
quashed - However, trial Court will be at liberty to exercise its power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused at
a later stage. (Dev Sareen Vs DCM Financial Ltd.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 658 (DELHI)
#15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of signatory
without prosecution of company itself - Difference of opinion as to whether signatory only can be prosecuted without
prosecution of company - In view of difference of opinion matter referred to larger bench. (Aneeta Hada Vs
M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.C.)
#16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Liability of company where substantive
sentence is provided - A company can be proceeded against in a criminal proceeding even where imposition of
substantive sentence is provided for. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604
(S.C.)
2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3) RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255
#1: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice - Prosecution of person
incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Statutory notice to every person, including
Director, who is sought to be prosecuted, is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB)
#2: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Nothing in complaint to show that
accused Nos.1 & 2 were responsible for conduct of business of the company at relevant time and nothing to show that
accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with or abetted accused Nos.3 & 4 in respect of alleged offence - Proceedings against
accused Nos.1 & 2 quashed. (T.R.Gupta & Anr. Vs M/s Vascon), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (GAUHATI)
#3: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director's responsibility Complainant has to specifically show as to how and in what manner the accused alleged director was responsible for the
conduct of business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its function - Allegations bald and general
in nature - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (Ashok Newatia Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
277 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 66 (DELHI)
#4: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director and Director Liability - In case of Managing Director a presumption arises that the offence is committed with his active knowledge,
consent or supervision for the reasons by virtue of the designation of his office - It is not so in case of Directors - To
fasten liability on a Director it has to be proved that the person named as the Director was responsible to the company
and was in charge of the affairs of the Company pertaining to the conduct of the business of the company. (Sarla Jain Vs
Central Bank of India), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI)
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Complaint by Managing
Partner of a firm in respect of a cheque issued in favour of firm is maintianble. (Nasar Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (KERALA)
#6: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Sleeping Director - Not a
ground to quash proceedings as it is a matter of evidence. (Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Vs Brahm Prakash Sharma), 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 412 (DELHI)
#7: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Banker's cheque - Account attached by Income
Tax Department - Issuance of Bankers cheque being the result of an oversight or negligence - Offence u/s 138 of the Act
is not made out - Complaint quashed. (Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 442 (DELHI)
#8: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Stand of petitioners that they have no
privity of contract with complainant company - On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not
gathered - Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon
actual offender - Proceedings quashed against petitioners. (M/s.Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs
State of West Bengal & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA)
#9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director negotiated loan Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan - Managing Director resigned - Cheque dishonoured thereafter Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned - It was he who had taken
responsibility to accept loan. (J.P.S.Sandhu Vs M/s.Patiala Auto Enterprises etc.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654
(P&H) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H)
#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of authorised signatory Notice not given to company - Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who
was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business - Process issued against accused
quashed. (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY)
#11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Mere fact that proceedings have
been quashed against the accused will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a
case for taking cognizance against him has been made out in the additional evidence led before it. (Kapal Mehra Vs
Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY)
2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 :
2007(3) KLT 672 (SC)
#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Vicarious liability Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for an offence committed by the Company
that he was in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business - Such requirement must be read
conjointly and not disjunctively. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127
(S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC)
#23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Allegations in complaint
that respondent accused Nos.2 to 12 were Directors/persons responsible for carrying out business of company and the
liability of accused persons was joint and several - High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show
that respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed proceedings against
respondents - No reason to interfere. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.)
#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Only such person is liable
if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the
business of the company. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.)
#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Persons sought to be made
criminally liable - Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the
relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a
company. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) :
2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY)
#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Merely being a director of a
company is not sufficient to make the person liable - There should be a clear averment in the complaint that at the time
the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the
company - Without there being such a averment in the complaint requirement of S.141 cannot be said to be satisfied.
(2005(2) Apex Court Judgments 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) Criminal Court Cases 502
(S.C.) Followed). (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs R.B.S.Channabasavardhya), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01
(S.C.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S.C.) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.C.) : 2006
CRILJ 4602 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56)
ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR
228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS
680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP)
SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ
161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 :
2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - An employee of a
proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the Act. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes),
2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5)
SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 :
2007(5) SCC 103
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Vicarious liability - Complaint must
contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview of S.141 of the Act so as to make some persons
other than company vicariously liable therefor. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709
(S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR
2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint against firm and its five partners Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm - No ground made out to
quash the proceedings. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H)
#5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company - Complaint against company and its
Directors - Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed, the person
accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - This averment is an essential
requirement of Section 141 of the Act - Without this averment in complaint, requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to
be satisfied. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 033 (P&H)
#6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Notice given to company - Separate
notice to Managing Director who signed the cheque on behalf of company is not required - Proceedings against
Managing Director cannot be quashed. (Rajkumar Malhotra Vs Bhanwarlal), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 466
(RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 539 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 152 (RAJASTHAN) :
2007(1) ALJ(EE) 92 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 553
#7: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Nominated Director - Director
nominated by IDBI as financial assistance extended to company - IDBI a financial institution controlled by Central Govt.
- Director nominated by a Central Government or State Government or a Financial Corporation owned or controlled by
Central Government or State Government cannot be prosecuted for dishonour of cheque - Proceedings against petitioner
quashed. (V.K.Saxena Vs State), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
822 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 262 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 592 : 2006(132) DLT 498
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - No averment in complaint
as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of business of Company or otherwise
responsible to it in regard to its functioning - Held, even if allegations in complaint are taken to be correct in its entirety
the same do not disclose any offence against the Director - Proceedings against Director quashed. (Saroj Kumar Poddar
Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (S.C.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 842
(S.C.) : 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 243 (S.C.) : JT 2007(2) SC 233 : 2007(2) SCALE 36 : 2007 AIR SCW
656 : 2007(4) MAH LJ 421 : 2007(3) SCC 693 : 2007(58) ACC 1090 : 2007(52) AIC 235 : AIR 2007 SC 912 : 2007
CLC 163
#9: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Company and its Directors
approached complainant for grant of loan - As per loan agreement Company issued three cheques, which were
dishonoured - A2 M.D. of company and A3 to A6 its Directors - Plea to quash complaint on the ground that there was no
proper averment and notice of offence was framed mechanically - If there are requisite averments in complaint under
Ss.138 and 141 of N.I. Act then matter has to proceed for expeditious disposal and defence is to be raised before
concerned Magistrate and is not to be considered in a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. - No interference called for.
(G.S.Saluja Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (DELHI)
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Co-operative Society - Secretary signatory of cheque - Signatory of
cheque if ceases to be Secretary on the date when offence was committed cannot be prosecuted u/s 138 of the Act Crucial date for determining date when offence was committed is when cheque is returned by the bank unpaid - A person
can be prosecuted for offence u/s 138 only if at the time the offence was committed he was in charge of and responsible
to the company for the conduct of business of the company. (Kairali Marketing & Processing Co-op.Society Ltd. Vs
Pullengadi Service Co-op. Society Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 624 (KERALA)
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of Company, its
Chairman, Managing Director and Director - Petitioner denied that he was ever Chairman of Company - No evidence
except affidavit of complainant - Petitioner did not sign the cheque - Authentic and unimpeachable documents placed on
record to show that petitioner was not Chairman of Company and inspite of opportunity granted complainant did not
controvert the same - Prima facie evidence shows that petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence and he cannot be
held vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company - Summoning of petitioner quashed. (Shekhar
Suman Vs Narender & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 769
(P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 224 (P&H) : 2007(4) AKAR 554 : 2007(50) ALLINDCAS 322
#12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Part time Director - No averment in
complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day business of the company or was in charge of and
responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence - Petitioner not a
signatory of the cheque - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H)
#13: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Sleeping partner - Not liable Mere fact that a partner has financial stake in the business of the firm is not sufficient in itself to attract culpable liability
under Section 141(1) of the Act - To attract culpable liability a partner must be in charge of and responsible to the firm to
the conduct of its business. (K.K.Mohandas Vs M/s Jayasamudri Trading Co. & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
803 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER.) : 2006(47)
ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776
#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Liable for prosecution despite non prosecution of the
Director or Directors responsible for the management of the affairs of the company or incharge of its affairs. (Balaji
Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 32 (A.P.)
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partner - Not liable if he merely derives profits
from the company - To make a partner liable he must be in charge of and responsible to the firm in the conduct of
business of firm. (Mohandas Vs Jayasamudri Trading Co.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 380 (KERALA) : AIR 2007
NOC 33 (KER.) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776
#16: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence by company - Quashing of complaint Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that petitioner ceased to be Director of company with effect from 18.5.2003
- Cheque bounced on 25.6.2003 - Complainant seriously disputed the genuineness of resolution passed by Board of
Directors - Disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in summary proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. (Atul Kohli &
Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 676 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452
(P&H)
#17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against partners - Complaint not
disclosing that at the time the offence was committed petitioner was in any way incharge of and was responsible for the
conduct of the business of the firm - Complaint quashed against petitioner. (Suman Madanlal Bora Vs State of
Maharashtra & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 356 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590
(BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 324 (NOC) : AIR 2006 BOM 921 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 539 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR
HCR 648 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 434 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 707 : 2006(1) BOM CRI R 243 : 2006(4) MAH
LJ 369
#18: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Firm - Managing partner issued cheque to discharge liability of firm Cheque dishonoured - It is not essential to prosecute the firm/company also before the person in charge is sought to be
prosecuted. (N.Radhakrishnan Vs A.C.Thomas & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (KERALA) : 2006(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 431 (KERALA)
#19: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Notice - Prosecution of company and directors - Notice to
company - It is not required that each and every Director of company should be served with notice. (Madan Aggarwal Vs
State & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI)
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Registered society - Cheque issued by Secretary for and on behalf of
society - Cheque dishonoured - Secretary is liable u/s 138 of the Act even if he ceases to be its Secretary. (Shaji Vs
Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Where the facts necessary for proceeding against
an accused are not averred, then it is not 'a complaint of facts which constitute the offence'. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State
of Kerala), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) :
2005(4) KLT 174
#22: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Firm - Dishonour of cheque - Criminal liability is not confined to the
signatory of the cheque alone but extends to non signatories also provided other conditions in that regard are satisfied.
(Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174
#23: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured issued by company - Directors of
Company cannot be prosecuted in absence of their name appearing in the array of accused in the complaint. (Rajesh
Bagga Vs State), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (DELHI)
#24: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque issued by Company - Prosecution of
Company, Chairman, Vice Chairman and other Directors of the company - For prosecution of Chairman, Vice Chairman
and other Directors of the Company complaint must show how they are responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day
business of the company and how they were actually involved in the conduct of the business of the company relating to
the transaction in question or how and on what basis it can be said that it was with the active connivance of these accused
that the offence was committed by the company - - Omnibus allegation that Chairman and Directors of the company
were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and all of them connived in the offence is not sufficient
for their prosecution. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Ltd. Vs State), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (DELHI) : 2006(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 531 (DELHI) : 2005(124) DLT 353
#25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Statutory requirements - Where Court is required to issue summons which
would put the accused to some sort of harassment, Court should insist strict compliance of the statutory requirements.
(Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs R.B.S.Channabasavardhya), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S.C.) : 2006(4)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S.C.) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.C.) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S.C.) :
AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3)
ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR 228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 :
2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290
SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES
67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 :
2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 :
2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190
#1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - No allegation in complaint that cheques were
issued with consent or knowledge of Directors - No allegation that Directors were responsible for control of day to day
business of company or had active role in issuing cheques - Order of cognizance against Directors quashed. (Madanlal
& Ors. Vs Bhanwarlal), 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (RAJASTHAN)
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order - It is an interim order - It can
be varied or recalled if accused is able to show that no offence is made out from the complaint. (Balaji Trading Company
Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Society - President of society issued cheque, on his own behalf, and not
on behalf of the society - Cheque drawn from personal account of President of society - Held, Society or its Secretary not
liable for offence u/s 138 of the Act on dishonour of such a cheque. (Pramod Vs C.K.Velayudhan & Ors.), 2006(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 731 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 947 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4572 :
2006(1) ALJ 164 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 225(NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 719 : 2006(1) CUR CRI R 187 :
2005(4) ILR (KER.) 412 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 210 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI.) 500 : 2006(1) RCR(CRIMINAL) 500 : 2006(1)
JCC (NI) 62
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Society - President issued cheque from his personal account to
discharge a debt or liability of society - Cheque dishonoured - Society or its Secretary cannot be proceeded against,
unless it is established that the dishonoured cheque is drawn by the society on an account maintained by the society
itself. (Pramod Vs C.K.Velayudhan & Ors.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 731 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 947 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4572 : 2006(1) ALJ 164 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 225(NOC) :
2006(1) ALL CRI LR 719 : 2006(1) CUR CRI R 187 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.) 412 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 210 : 2006(1)
RCR(CRI.) 500 : 2006(1) RCR(CRIMINAL) 500 : 2006(1) JCC (NI) 62
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Liability depends not upon holding an office in a company
but satisfying the main requirement that he was incharge and responsible for conduct of business of company at the
relevant time - A Director not incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the Company is not liable for the
offence whereas a person not holding any office but incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at
the relevant time is liable for the offence, punishable u/s 138 of the Act. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla &
Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005
CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR
421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 :
2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 :
2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC
MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT
275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4)
KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 :
2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ
64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 :
2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4)
RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229
#6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against Company, its
directors and its officers who signed and issued cheques - Summons and warrants against Company and its Directors not
served - Case split up - Prosecution continued only against officers who signed cheques - Prosecution of company is not
sine qua non for prosecution of other persons - If for some reasons Company cannot be prosecuted then other persons
cannot on that score escape from penal liability. (K.Chandrasekhar & Anr. Vs Mac Charles India Limited, Bangalore),
2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 100 (KARNATAKA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 434 (KARNATAKA) :
2005 CRI LJ 1120 : 2005 AIR KANT HCR 298 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 149 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 867 : 2005(3)
ALL MR 15 : 2005(3) BANK CLR 79 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 533 : 2005 BANK J 580 : 2005(2) CIV LJ 861 : 2005(2)
CUR CRI R 144 : 2005(2) KANT LJ 124
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Person incharge and responsible to the company - Quashing
of complaint sought on ground that complaint when read as a whole not disclosing commission of an offence or that
some of the accused are lawyers and/or other professionals who had no scope for direct participation in the conduct of
business of the company - Held, the question whether a person is in charge of or is responsible to the company for
conduct of its business is to be adjudicated on the basis of materials to be placed by the parties and whether allegations
contained are sufficient to attract culpability is matter for adjudication at the trial. (S.V.Muzumdar & Ors. Vs Gujarat
State Fertilizer Co.Ltd. & Anr.), 2005(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 604 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
335 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 720 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 2436 : 2005 CRI LJ 2566 : 2005 AIR SCW
2364 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 474 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 87 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R 1858 : 2005(30) ALL IND CAS 51 :
2005 ALL MR(CRI) 1580 : 2005(2) ALT(CRI.) SC 278 : 2005(2) BANK CLR 528 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 1 : 2005
BANKING J 406 : 2005(3) CTC 380 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 267 : 2005 CG LJ 391 : 2005(3) CIV LJ 620 : 2005(125)
COM CAS 188 : 2005 CRI LR(SC MAH GUJ) SC 450 : 2005 CRI LR (SC&MP) SC 450 : 2005(2) CRIMES 141 (SC) :
2005(2) CUR CRI R 167 : 2005(2) EAST CRI C 291 : 2005(2) GCD SC 1627 : 2005(3) GUJ LR 2053 : 2005(3) ICC
444 : ILR(KANT.) ) 2005 SC 2494 : 2005(3) KCCR 1557 : 2005(2) KHCACJ 226 : 2005(4) MPHT 163 : 2005(3) MPLJ
271 : 2005(3) MAH LJ 754 : 2005(31) OCR 645 : 2005(2) REC CRI R 860 : 2005(4) SCC 173 : 2005(4) SCJ 503 :
2005(4) SRJ 597 : 2005(4) SCALE 354 : 2005 SCC(CRI.) 1020 :
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership - Partners - Absence of averments in complaint that partners
are Incharge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm - Order of Magistrate discharging
the appellants restored. (Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.), 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
598 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 488 (S.C.) : 2004(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 473 (S.C.) : AIR
2004 SC 4274 : 2004 CRI LJ 4249 : 2004 AIR SCW 4716 : 2004(6) ACE 529 : 2004(2) ALL CJ 1935 : 2004(50) ALL
CRI C 412 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 963 : 2004(3) ALL CRI R 2084 : 2004(21) ALL IND CAS 1 : 2004(56) ALL LR 713 :
2004(2) ALT (CRI.) 237 S.C. : 2004(3) BLJR 1763 : 2004(2) BANK CLR 714 : 2004 BANK J 906 : 2004(2) BOM. CR
(CRI.) 512 : 2004 CAL CRI R 1007 : 2004(2) CAL LJ 215 : 2004(3) CHAND LR (CIV&CRI) 714 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 717
: 2004(5) COM LJ SC 91 : 2004(61) COR LA 168 : 2004(3) CRIMES 231 (SC) : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 88 : 2004(3)
EAST CRI C 158 : 2005(1) GCD SC 325 : 2004(3) GUJ LH 769 : 2005(1) GUJ LR 21 : 2004(4) ICC 680 : 2004(22)
IND LD 145 : 2004(2) JCJR 172 : JT 2004(6) SC 309 : 2004(3) KHCACJ 570 : 2004(3) KLT 428 : 2005(1) MPHT 97 :
2004(29) OCR 149 : 2004(4) PAT LJR 91 : 2004(3) PLR 615 : 2004(3) RAJ CRI C 753 : 2004(4) RAJ LW 499 : 2004(3)
REC CRI R 799 : 2004(7) SCC 15 : 2004(54) SEBI&CL SC 595 : 2004(7) SRJ 548 : 2004(6) SCALE 507 : 2004
SCC(CRI.) 1857 : 2004(2) UJ(SC) 1337 : 2004(9) AD 22
#9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - If certain crimes are committed by its officials, the company
is liable for prosecution - When company is convicted, the liability can be only in terms of fine as the company is
responsible for the acts of commissions and omissions of the persons working for it. (Balaji Trading Company Vs
Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.)
#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice not given to petitioner who
was one of the directors of the company - He had not either drawn or signed the cheque - He was merely a non-executive
Director of the Company - He had resigned from the Board of Directors before issuance of the cheque - It was accused
No.2 who was in sole management and incharge of day-to-day affairs of the company - Proceedings against petitioner
quashed. (Chaitan M.Maniar Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 418 (BOMBAY) :
2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 342 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ 2343 : 2004(20) ALL IND CAS 188 : 2004 ALL
MR(CRI.) 2027 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 584 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) 14 : 2004(3) CIV LR 294 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 1035
#11: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Retired Director who did not function as Director
either on date of cheque or when cause of action arose for non payment cannot be prosecuted. (Ashok Muthanna,
Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd. Vs Wipro Finance Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203
(MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78
#12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments
effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988. (K.K.Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors.), 2003(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI.)
BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6)
BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ
838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0497
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - All the partners cannot be proceed as accused on the
assumption that liability of all the partners is joint as only those partners who are actually incharge of the firm and are
responsible for the conduct of its business can be proceeded against as accused. (Punjab State Coop. Supply and
Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs M/s Malerkotla Rice Mills & Ors.), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 386 (P&H) : 2003(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 700 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0172
#14: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Petitioner resigned and he was not Director either
on the date when the cheques were issued or when the cause of action arose - Proceedings against petitioner quashed.
(S.B.Shankar Vs M/s.Amman Steel Corporation), 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 76 (MADRAS) : 2002 (2) ISJ
(BANKING) 0253
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Director - Merely being a Director of a company is not
sufficient to make him liable - A Director is liable only if he is incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the
company at the relevant time and there has to be an averment in the complaint to this effect - Without this averment
being made in a complaint, the requirements of S.141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs
Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) :
2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 :
2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4)
ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT
(CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005
CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 :
2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 :
2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT
450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW
(CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 :
2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC
(CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 :
2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Provision is in two parts - Sub-section (2) is in addition to sub-section (1) This means that a person who is covered by sub-section (1) of S.141 shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall
be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly - Besides that, those persons who are covered under subsection (2) of S.141 shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall also liable to be proceeded against and
punished accordingly, in addition to persons who are covered in sub-section (1) of S.141 of the Act. (S.C.Chhabra,
Director Vs M/s Gontermann Peipers (India) Limited), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ
(BANKING) 0348
#25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - A person other than 'company' can be proceeded against if it is shown that he
was incharge of and was responsible to the company or the firm for the conduct of its business. (Inder Sehgal Vs M/s
Thakar Petro Chemicals Ltd.), 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 580 (P&H) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 18
(P&H)
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - The facts stated in the complaint must disclose
commission of an offence by each one of the accused - There must be clear factual foundation laid in the complaint itself
attracting the ingredients of S.138 of the Act against every person arrayed as an accused in the complaint - Allegations
made in the complaint cannot be read along with the sworn statement recorded at the time of taking the complaint on file
and the allied document to find out whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused for the alleged offence The sworn statement and statements recorded on oath by the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance of an offence on
complaint do not form an integral part of the complaint. (K.Janakimanoharan & Anr. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex
Limited), 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.P.)
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Complaint singed by the counsel but not by the complainant - Returned
- Complaint filed again when limitation had expired - Complaint not to be dismissed as initial date of presentation is the
criteria. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A.P.) :
2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801
#3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Complaint by Recovery Manager who held special power of
attorney from Managing Director - No illegality in filing the complaint - Even in the absence of the minutes of the
Board, the Special Power of Attorney executed by the Chairman and Managing Director is sufficient to authorise
Recovery Manager to launch the prosecution. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.), 2001(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801
#4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque jointly issued by accused Nos.2 and 3, Directors, on behalf of
accused No.1 Company in connection with business transaction - Service of demand notice on Company, shall be
deemed to be also the service thereof on its Directors. (Arun Hegde Vs M.J.Shetty), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 645
(KARNATAKA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0708
#5: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Notice - Company - Notice served on Company - Notice shall be
deemed to have been served upon Directors of Company. (A.K.Goenka Vs State), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248
(DELHI) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 2000(1) AD(DELHI) 387
#6: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque presented at Delhi and dishonoured - Notice
issued to drawer from Delhi but no payment made - Court at Delhi has jurisdiction. (M/s Prem Cashew Industries Vs Zen
Pareo), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (DELHI) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0103 : 2001 ALL MR (CRL.) 33 :
2001(1) RCR (CR) 134 (DELHI)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Non impleading of the other Directors of the Company Contention to be raised at the trial only. (R.Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree Balaji Cotton Industries), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0249
#18: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Director - Petitioner already resigned at the relevant time Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies shows that the petitioner has resigned from the said post of the
Company w.e.f. 19.1.1991 - Complainant placed on record a copy of the Form No.32 issued by the Registrar of
Companies showing that the petitioner remained Director of the said Company upto 9.7.1997 - Both these forms have
been issued by the Registrar of Companies - It is a disputed question of fact - Can only be decided at the trial.
(B.C.Sharma Vs M/s Ashok Kumar Pradeep Kumar), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (DELHI) : 2000 (1) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0807 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0309
#19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Cheque issued by Company and signed by one
`D' its Managing Director - `D' sought to be prosecuted in his personal capacity - No allegation in the complaint that the
offence was committed by the company and that `D' is sought to be prosecuted by virtue of the provision u/s 141 of the
Act in his capacity as an officer or the person in-charge of and responsible to for the conduct of the business of the
company - Complaint against `D' quashed. (D.Chandra Reddy Vs Ghourisetti Prabhakar & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 315 (A.P.)
#20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Normally a Managing Director is
supposed to be incharge of managing the Company and would obviously be responsible to the Company. (B.Manipal
Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.P.)
#21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Absence of an averment in the
complaint that the Managing Director is in-charge and responsible to the Company - Accused described as Managing
Director of the Company and the agreement, which is the basis for the liability for payment of money on the part of the
accused, describes him as Managing Direction and even the reply notice sent by the Company, of which the accused is
the Managing Director shows that he has been the Managing Director of the Company - Mere absence of averment in the
complaint that the accused is in-charge of and responsible to the Company does not justify quashing of the proceedings Petition dismissed. (B.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.P.)
#22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 142, 138-- - Company - Complaint against company and its Directors Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of the Directors - A-1 is company and is liable for
prosecution - A-2 is the Chief Managing Director and Signatory, hence liable for prosecution - A-3 is the Director and
authorised signatory and is thus liable for prosecution - A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to
what role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted - A-5 is a financial
controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company, as such he is liable for prosecution Complaint against A-4 quashed. (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited, Mumbai & Ors. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited,
Hyderabad & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 265 (A.P.)
#23: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Complaint against Directors of Company - It is not for
complainant to make a research to find out Directors who were incharge and responsible to the Company for conduct of
business of Company - It is open to Directors to prove that offence was committed without their knowledge or that due
diligence was taken to prevent such offence. (A.K.Goenka Vs State), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (DELHI) :
1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 2000(1) AD(DELHI) 387
#24: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141, 138-- - Company - Under liquidation and Official Liquidator appointed Cheque issued by Company and signed by Managing Director - No claim made against assets of the company - Criminal
proceedings cannot be stayed under S.446 of the Companies Act - S.446 of the Companies Act is not attracted in criminal
proceedings where the assets of the company are not involved and the proceedings pending against the accused were
only in respect of the commission of the offence and the punishment thereon. (Jose Antony Vs Official Liquidator),
2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0221 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.)
0502
#25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Company - Averments in complaint that petitioners were in-charge of and
responsible to the affairs of the company and cheques issued with their consent and knowledge - No ground to quash the
complaint - However, it is open to the petitioners to plead always that the offence was committed without his knowledge
or that he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence, but such proof can be put forth only at
the time of trial. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318
(A.P.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partnership firm - Notice to company is sufficient compliance - No
separate notice need be given to the partner of firm who issued the cheque which is subject matter of complaint, before
initiating proceedings under the Act. (M.Rajender Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 652 (A.P.)
(A.P.) 0309 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0029 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0092 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0460
#12: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - Except for the bald statement that they are
Directors, there is no evidence to show that at the time of commission of offence they were incharge of and were
responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company - Held, complaint against such Directors
quashed. (Modern Denim Ltd. Vs Lucas TVS Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 397 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0739 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0109 : 1999 (3) CTC 0145
#13: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Cheque issued by Managing Director - Criminal
proceedings against the Company and against the Managing Director and two directors - Charge sought to be quashed by
the two Directors - No averment in the complaint or preliminary evidence that both the Directors were incharge and
responsible to the company for conduct of its business and offence was committed by them - Charge against the two
directors quashed. (Mahendra Pratap Singh Ratra Vs M/s N.K.Metals), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 257 (DELHI) :
1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0287 : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0368 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0181 : 1998
CRL. L.J. 4383 : (1998)75 DLT 155
#14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Every person who at the time the offence was committed
was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the company would be deemed
to be guilty of the offence - Nothing in complaint to show that petitioners were incharge of and responsible for the
conduct of the business of the Company - Complaint qua petitioners quashed. (Kishori Lal Vs Pawan Kumar), 1998(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 657 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0023
#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint by Director - Held, without authorisation a
Director or any similarly situated person cannot maintain a complaint. (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers), 1998(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0102 :
1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP.
CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL.) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0370 :
1997(1) APLJ 423 (H.C.)
#16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Partners - No allegation that respondents No.3 & 4 were the incharge
and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm - Such allegations in the preliminary statement will not help
the complainant - If the complainant has become wiser during the course of preliminary evidence such statement cannot
make a fresh premise in order to summon and prosecute respondents No.3 & 4 - Held, Magistrate is not right in
summoning them in order to face the criminal liability and as such the charge against them could not sustain in the eyes
of law. (Tara Chand & Ors. Vs M/s Dabkauli Trading Company), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ
(BANKING) 0509 : 1998 (2) AIJ 0182 : 1998 (2) PLR 0562
#17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Prosecution against the Company and its two Directors who
signed the cheque - Company going into liquidation - Company discharged - Directors who signed the cheque cannot
escape the criminal liability - Protection of S.446 of Companies Act is available to the Company but not to its Directors.
(Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H)
#18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Special provisions contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act prevail
over the provisions of Companies Act, 1956. (Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd.), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681
(P&H)
#19: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Sleeping director - Cannot be prosecuted - Onus is on the
complaint to show that persons sought to be proceeded against were incharge of and responsible to the Company for the
conduct of its business - No such averment in the complaint against the petitioner - Proceedings against the petitioner
quashed. (Mohan Kumar Mukherjee Vs Ledo Tea Company Limited), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 690
(CALCUTTA)
#20: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint filed in the name of
Company through Administrative manager who has signed the complaint - No special authority is required - Question of
authorisation arises only if the complaint is filed in person name for and on behalf of the company - Held, complaint is
maintainable. (Geekay Exim (India) Ltd., & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 434
(GUJARAT) : 1998 CRI LJ 700 : 1998(2) ALL INDIA CRI LR 399
#21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Notice issued to company - Company not made an accused
- Complaint filed against directors only - Directors even if not alleged to be incharge of the business of the company and
were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company in the complaint then the same can well
be supplied at the trial by adducing evidence - Notice whether is in conformity to the provisions of the Act is a matter of
evidence - It is also a matter of evidence whether the notice issued to the company alone and no notice was issued to the
directors thereof - Further it is also a matter of evidence whether notice issued to the company could be taken to be a
notice to the directors of the company it is the directors composing the company to whom the issuance of notice would
matter - Held, complaint cannot be quashed. (T.P.Singh Kalra Vs The Star Wire India Ltd.), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 437 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0385 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0629 : 1998 (4) RCR
(CRL.) 0179 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0487 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0186 : 1998 (1) CLR 0390
#22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Company includes firm - Prosecution can be launched
either against company alone, or person in charge of affairs of company alone, or both together - Firm when prosecuted
alongwith partner who had signed the cheque - Held, there is no irregularity. (M/s Visva Cement Products, Gadag Vs
Karnataka State Financial Corporation, Gadag), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA)
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Averments in complaint that accused are active and
responsible Directors of the Company - Prayer to quash complaint declined. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella Knitwear),
1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0025 : 1997 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES
0230
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Payment of Rs.20 lacs after institution of complaint - Complainant not
yet admitted the receipt of this amount against the cheque - Prayer of quashment of complaint declined as it is a question
of fact. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella Knitwear), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING)
0025 : 1997 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0230
#25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Cheque issued with consent of directors of Company Cheque dishonoured - Prima facie offence against directors is made out - No ground to quash the proceedings on the plea
that complaint did not disclose that accused were responsible to the company for conduct of its affairs. (K.Subramanian
& Ors. Vs Kamakshi Extractions & Anr.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (A.P.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0287 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0253 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0335 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0660
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque issue by servant - Amounts to issuing of cheque by the
principal. (A.Veerabhadra Rao Vs Govt. of A.P.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 284 (A.P.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0530 : 1994 BJ 0652 : 1994 CRL. L.J. NOC 0158 : 1993 (3) ANDH LT 0705 : 1994 (1) APLJ
0071 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL.) 0277
#2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Complaint against partners - Firm not a party - Complaint cannot
be quashed. (Aruna Khurana & Ors. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H)
#3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque dishonoured - Presented for the second time - Again
dishonoured - Notice issued - Payment not made within time - Complaint filed - Held, complaint is maintainable. (Lallu
Lal Agrawal Vs Damodar Prasad Gupta), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 593 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) ALL
INDIA CRI. LR (RAJASTHAN) 0847 : 1998(2) CIVIL LJ 0067 : 1997(3) RCR(CRL.) 0216 : 1997(1) BANKING
CASES 0433 : 1998(94) COMP. CASES 0797 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1545 : 1997(2) CCR 0503 : 1997 CRI LR (RAJ) 0185 :
1997 RAJ CRI 0391 : 1997 (2) RAJ LW 0726
#4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured - Prosecution of Chairman alone
without impleading the Company - Complaint is maintainable - Under S.141, the Company and the person who is
incharge and responsible to Company for conduct of its business are both liable for punishment, but there is no
requirement that both of them should be prosecuted - Their liability is independent - Each of them is independently liable
for punishment. (R.Ramachandran Vs Yerram Sesha Reddy), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 136 (A.P.) : 1997 (3) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0209 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0470 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0253 : 1999 (96)
COMP. CASES 0830 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1595 : 1997 (2) CCR 0574 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0169
#5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued after the cheque was dishonoured
fourth time - Complaint is maintainable - Held, if cheque is presented again and again, the cause of prosecute subsists but
if notice has been issued thereafter, re-presentment of the cheque does not give a fresh cause. (Sunil Behal Vs Bliagwat
Dayal Gupta & Anr.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (P&H)
#6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint filed by power - of - attomey holder Power - of - attorney executed in favour of Accounts Officer of the Company - He is the person who is having the full
knowledge of the transactions of the Company and he is the right person to speak about the transactions that had taken
place between the complainant - company and the accused persons - Held, complaint is maintainable. (P.A.Verghese Vs
Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA)
#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - All the directors arrayed as accused - Held, it is open to
the accused to make it clear by filing application fixing responsibility - If such an application is made, Court may pass
necessary orders giving notice to the complainant. (P.A.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA)
#8: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Complaint filed against
partners of firm and firm not made a party - Complaint is maintainable. (Manimekalai Vs Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi),
1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0183 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0600 : 1995 CRL. L.J.
1102
#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint by power of attorney holder - It is
permissible. (Manimekalai Vs Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (MADRAS) : 1995
(2) RCR (CRL.) 0183 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0600 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1102
#10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - `Person incharge and responsible' - No allegation in the complaint
that petitioner was responsible to the company or was incharge of the company - No act or negligence attributed to him Complaint qua the petitioner quashed. (Raj Kumar Mangla Vs Indo Lowebrau Breweries), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL
COURT CASES 69 (P&H)
#11: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Specific averment as to persons
responsible for conduct of its business not made - However, certain officials of the company arrayed as accused Absence of such averments in the complaint not material - Prosecution against Company and/or other individual officials
named therein cannot be quashed. (N.Doraisamy Vs M/s Archana Enterprises), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 378
(MADRAS) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0405 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0129 : 1995 CRL. L.J.
2306 : 1995 MLJ (CRL.) 0482
#12: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque issued on behalf of Company by its Director - Company is
maker of the cheque - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued to the Company is sufficient - Separate notice to the Director
is not required. (Dilip Kumar Jaiswal Vs Debapriya Banerjee), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (CALCUTTA) :
1992(2) KLT 35
#13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.138 to 142 not ultra vires
the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions - Matters covered by S.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of ListI (Union List.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) :
1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT
(CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint sought to be quashed on the plea that
petitioner is not incharge of the Company or at least not being one of its Directors - Not brought on record so far Petitioner to bring this fact on record when the trial starts and only then he can apply for quashing complaint against him.
(Rajan Kinnerkar Vs Eric Cordeiro), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (BOMBAY) : 1995 ISJ (BANKING) 0064 :
1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0408 : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0800 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES
0462 : 1994 (80) COMP. CASES 0487 : 1994 BJ 0536 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0259
#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors of the company sought quashment of complaint
on the plea that they were neither in charge of nor responsible for the affairs of the company - Held, as there is no
allegation in the complaint against the petitioners that they are incharge of or were responsible to the company for the
conduct of its business, complaint and summoning order quashed. (Sushil Singla Vs Haripal Singh), 1994(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 267 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0225
#16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, Union List,
Entries 45, 46 - Words `Banking, Bills of Exchange, Cheques, Promissory Notes and other like instruments' - Occurring
in Entries Nos.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude - Held, Parliament has
power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayuri
Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES
0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702
#17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - There is no provision in the Act that Company has also to be prosecuted
alongwith person who issued cheque on behalf of the Company - Complaint is maintainable when filed only against the
person who issued the cheque. (M.Venkateswara Rao Vs Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT
CASES 238 (A.P.) : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0468
#18: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Cheque dishonoured - Proprietary concern - Complaint against - Not
maintainable - Complaint is maintainable against the proprietor only. (Sri Sivasakthi Industries Vs Arihant Metal
Corporation), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 388 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0263 : 1993 (1) BANKING
CASES 0120 : 1992 (74) COMP. CASES 0749 : 1993 BJ 0184 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0374 : 1992 LW (CRL.) 0347 :
1992(36) MLJ 102
#19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director, Manager, Secretary etc. - Even
if not incharge and not responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, liability under the
provision arises if the offence was committed with his consent, connivance or due to his negligence. (Mrs.Manju Podar
& Anr. Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 608 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0228 : 1994 (1)
ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0508 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0655 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0557 : 1994 (1)
BCLR 0619 : 1994 CRL. L.J. NOC 0446 : 1994 (1) PLR 0634 : 1994 (2) CUR CRI R 1446
#20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - If the person committing an offence is a company
then every person who was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the
company at the time the offence was committed, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and so also the company.
(Mrs.Manju Podar & Anr. Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 608 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ
(BANKING) 0228 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0508 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0655 : 1994 (1)
BANKING CASES 0557 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0619 : 1994 CRL. L.J. NOC 0446 : 1994 (1) PLR 0634 : 1994 (2) CUR CRI
R 1446
#21: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 141-- - Company - Cheque dishonoured - Persons incharge of and responsible to
company for conduct of its business can alone be prosecuted irrespective of whether Company is prosecuted or not.
(N.Doraisamy Vs M/s Archana Enterprises), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 378 (MADRAS) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.)
0090 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0405 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0129 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 2306 : 1995 MLJ (CRL.) 0482
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Under liquidation and Official Liquidator appointed
- Cheque issued by Company and signed by Managing Director - No claim made against assets of the company Criminal proceedings cannot be stayed under S.446 of the Companies Act - S.446 of the Companies Act is not attracted
in criminal proceedings where the assets of the company are not involved and the proceedings pending against the
accused were only in respect of the commission of the offence and the punishment thereon. (Jose Antony Vs Official
Liquidator), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0221 : 2000 (2)
RCR (CRL.) 0502
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Absence of an averment in the
complaint that the Managing Director is in-charge and responsible to the Company - Accused described as Managing
Director of the Company and the agreement, which is the basis for the liability for payment of money on the part of the
accused, describes him as Managing Direction and even the reply notice sent by the Company, of which the accused is
the Managing Director shows that he has been the Managing Director of the Company - Mere absence of averment in the
complaint that the accused is in-charge of and responsible to the Company does not justify quashing of the proceedings Petition dismissed. (B.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.P.)
#3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director - Normally a Managing
Director is supposed to be incharge of managing the Company and would obviously be responsible to the Company.
(B.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.P. & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.P.)
#4: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Complaint against Directors of Company - It is not
for complainant to make a research to find out Directors who were incharge and responsible to the Company for conduct
of business of Company - It is open to Directors to prove that offence was committed without their knowledge or that
due diligence was taken to prevent such offence. (A.K.Goenka Vs State), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (DELHI) :
1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 2000(1) AD(DELHI) 387
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured - Such
person is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and is covered u/s 141 (2) of the Act. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.)
: 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW
4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4)
ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT
(CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005
CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 :
2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 :
2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT
450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW
(CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 :
2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC
(CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 :
2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229
#6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Managing Director and Joint Managing Director By virtue of the office they hold, they are persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the
company and they are covered u/s 141 of the Act. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX
COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005
AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3)
ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR
2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ
460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 :
2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ
356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4)
KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 :
2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL
SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 :
2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX
CRIMINAL 229
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 138-- - Company - Director - Merely being a Director of a company is
not sufficient to make him liable - A Director is liable only if he is incharge and responsible for conduct of business of
the company at the relevant time and there has to be an averment in the complaint to this effect - Without this averment
being made in a complaint, the requirements of S.141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs
Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.C.) :
2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 :
2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4)
ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT
(CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005
CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 :
2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 :
2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT
450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW
(CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 :
2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC
(CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 :
2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229
1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 142, 138-- - Company - Complaint against company and its Directors Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of the Directors - A-1 is company and is liable for
prosecution - A-2 is the Chief Managing Director and Signatory, hence liable for prosecution - A-3 is the Director and
authorised signatory and is thus liable for prosecution - A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to
what role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted - A-5 is a financial
controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company, as such he is liable for prosecution Complaint against A-4 quashed. (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited, Mumbai & Ors. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited,
Hyderabad & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 265 (A.P.)
#1: PATNA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint Cognizance wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 083 (PATNA)
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation Insertion of proviso to S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay - However, insertion
of the proviso is not retrospective in nature. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086
#3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation 13 days delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be
condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having
regard to the difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 130 (KARNATAKA)
#4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of
attorney holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint
remitted back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s
200 Cr.P.C. - Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to
consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD)
#5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Two notices served - Complaint
silent as to first notice - Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge. (M/s.Rishabh Nath & Ors. Vs State
of U.P.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD)
#6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint must be filed by
a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. (Chicho Ursula
D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY)
#7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Filed by power of attorney
holder - Power of attorney given by one of the Directors - Held, complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s
142(a) - On such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed. (Chicho
Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concerned - Power of
attorney holder - Sworn statement of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant
when he is personally aware of the transactions, and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the
payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586
(S.C.)
#9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s
138 of the Act - Complaint can be filing by describing viz. (1) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ, a sole
proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his
Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ, a proprietary concern of Mr.ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr.DEF.
(M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - In a criminal
complaint u/s.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself.
(M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint
u/s.138 of the Act - Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole
proprietor of the `payee'; (ii) The proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its
sole proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of
attorney executed by the sole proprietor. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.),
2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Averment that applicant
is the promoter and controller of the company - No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller
is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant - No averment as to how appellant is responsible for
dishonour of cheque - Held, averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order
quashed. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD)
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Co-operative Society - President on
behalf of Society can file complaint. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.S.Ranga), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) :
2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H)
#14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder - Held,
complaint can be filed by payee through power of attorney holder and there is no necessity for the complainant to file the
complaint in person. (Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (RAJASTHAN) :
2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 844 (RAJASTHAN)
#15: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation Delay of thirteen months - Reason stated negotiations were going on - Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.one lakh - Stake
quite heavy - Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the
matter in the presence of Ex-President of Kammavar Sangam - Delay condoned. (S.Rajaram Vs S.Seenivasan), 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS)
#16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Magistrate is obliged
and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a
solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh
Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3)
AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339
#17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Issuance of process Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.),
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) :
2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI)
1339
#18: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Summoning order on basis
of Affidavit - Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant - Summoning order
quashed - Matter remitted for reconsideration. (T.C.I. Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev. Corp.), 2007(4)
CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI)
#19: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint beyond period of limitation Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause - Amendment in provision of S.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature
and is applicable to pending cases. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 535 (GUJARAT)
#20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint by one of its
Directors - Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors - Held, on such a complaint no
process can be issued much less a conviction imposed. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY)
#21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Cannot be
condoned without notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA)
#22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - Filing of
complaint after period of limitation - It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period, if
complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. (Ranjitha
Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) :
2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2)
AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2)
KANTLJ 491
#23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Power of
Attorney holder - Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of attorney holder - Complaint signed by power
of attorney holder and not by proprietor - Held, complaint is duly filed by the payee. (M/s.Shankar Finance &
Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142-- - Proviso to S.142(b) of the Act as inserted in 2002 is not
retrospective in operation. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011
(S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086
#25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142-- - Proviso - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred complaint - Complaint
quashed - S.142(b) Proviso inserted by Act 55 of 2002 is not applicable to pending complaints which is prospective in
nature and is not intended to operate retrospectively. (Anil Kumar Goel Vs Kishan Chand Kaura), 2008(1) APEX
COURT JUDGMENTS 105 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
251 (S.C.) : 2008 AIR SCW 295 : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 290 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 357 : AIR 2008 SC 899 : 2008 CRILJ
1386 : 2008 AIRSCW 295 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 144 : 2007(14) SCALE 179
#1: PATNA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint - Cognizance
wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
083 (PATNA)
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation - Insertion of
proviso to S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay - However, insertion of the
proviso is not retrospective in nature. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086
#3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation - 13 days
delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be condoned
in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the
difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130
(KARNATAKA)
#4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of attorney
holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint remitted
back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200
Cr.P.C. - Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider
this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD)
#5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Two notices served - Complaint silent
as to first notice - Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge. (M/s.Rishabh Nath & Ors. Vs State of
U.P.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD)
#6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint must be filed by a person
authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza
Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY)
#7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Filed by power of attorney holder Power of attorney given by one of the Directors - Held, complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) - On
such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza
Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concerned - Power of attorney
holder - Sworn statement of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is
personally aware of the transactions, and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee.
(M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s 138 of
the Act - Complaint can be filing by describing viz. (1) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ, a sole
proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his
Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ, a proprietary concern of Mr.ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr.DEF.
(M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - In a criminal complaint
u/s.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself. (M/s.Shankar
Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s.138 of
the Act - Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor
of the `payee'; (ii) The proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole
proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of
attorney executed by the sole proprietor. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.),
2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Averment that applicant is the
promoter and controller of the company - No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is
responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant - No averment as to how appellant is responsible for
dishonour of cheque - Held, averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order
quashed. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD)
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Co-operative Society - President on behalf of
Society can file complaint. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.S.Ranga), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H)
- S.142(b) Proviso inserted by Act 55 of 2002 is not applicable to pending complaints which is prospective in nature and
is not intended to operate retrospectively. (Anil Kumar Goel Vs Kishan Chand Kaura), 2008(1) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 105 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 251
(S.C.) : 2008 AIR SCW 295 : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 290 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 357 : AIR 2008 SC 899 : 2008 CRILJ 1386 :
2008 AIRSCW 295 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 144 : 2007(14) SCALE 179
#1: PATNA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint - Cognizance
wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
083 (PATNA)
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation - Insertion of
proviso to S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay - However, insertion of the
proviso is not retrospective in nature. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086
#3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation - 13 days
delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be condoned
in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the
difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130
(KARNATAKA)
#4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of attorney
holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint remitted
back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200
Cr.P.C. - Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider
this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD)
#5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Two notices served - Complaint silent
as to first notice - Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge. (M/s.Rishabh Nath & Ors. Vs State of
U.P.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD)
#6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint must be filed by a person
authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza
Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY)
#7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Filed by power of attorney holder Power of attorney given by one of the Directors - Held, complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) - On
such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza
Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concerned - Power of attorney
holder - Sworn statement of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is
personally aware of the transactions, and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee.
(M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s 138 of
the Act - Complaint can be filing by describing viz. (1) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ, a sole
proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC, sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his
Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ, a proprietary concern of Mr.ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr.DEF.
(M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - In a criminal complaint
u/s.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself. (M/s.Shankar
Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - Complaint u/s.138 of
the Act - Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor
of the `payee'; (ii) The proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole
proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of
attorney executed by the sole proprietor. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.),
2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
in Entries Nos.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude - Held, Parliament has
power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayuri
Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES
0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702
#5: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the
cheque fails to make payment and that can be the place where the Bank to which the cheque was issued is located - It can
also be the place where the cheque was issued or delivered - The Court within whose jurisdiction any of the above said
places falls has got jurisdiction to try the offence. (Maheshwari Proteins Ltd. Vs State-Delhi Administration), 1994(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (DELHI) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0142 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.)
0235 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0080 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0019 : 1994 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0381 : 1990
DRJ 0029
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - A power of attorney holder of a payee or a holder in due course can
make a complaint u/s 142 of the Act. (Hamsa Vs Ibrahim), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ
(BANKING) 0722 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0314 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0159 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0800 :
1994(1) CRIMES 0395 : ILR 1994 (1) KERALA 0622
#7: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint should contain allegations of the
ingredients of the offence. (Cr.P.C., 1973, S.482) (Mohammed Rasheed Vs State of Kerala), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 256 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0125 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0329 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0030
: 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0045 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0674 : 1993 (2) KLT 1027 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0763
#8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Neither Ingredients of the offence spelled out nor
disclosed as to how the court at place `M' has jurisdiction - Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Mohinder Singh
Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 : 1994 (1)
ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0572 : 1994 (1)
BANKING CASES 0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0549 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509
#9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Essential requirements of clause (b) & (c) of the proviso to S.138 not
fulfilled - Complaint and the summoning order quashed. (Smt.Pushpa Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Sharma), 1994(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 384 (P&H) : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0258
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Arises only on the expiry of 15
days notice period - Complaint filed before this period is not maintainable. (Madhavan Vs Addl.Judicial First Class
Magistrate), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1993 (2)
BANKING CASES 0135 : 1993 (82) COMP. CASES 0753 : 1993 (1) KLT 0717
#11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonour - Police cannot entertain a complaint under
Sections 3 & 5 Cr.P.C. - Holder of cheque has to file a complaint before Magistrate. (H.Mohan & Anr. Vs State of
Karnataka), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0237 : 1991 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0343 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0036 : 1992 (1)
BANKING CASES 0221 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0215 : 1992 (73) COMP. CASES 0560 : 1992 BJ 0520 : 1991 (2) CRIMES
0093 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 1866 : ILR 1991 (KAR) 0612
#12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed-Quashing of-such complaints
are cognizable by Courts of competent jurisdiction - Application u/s482 can be entertained by the High Court only if
prima facie case is not made out on the allegations in complaint - Non mention of defence theory in complaint not a
ground for entertaining such application-It is not for High Court to go into rival contentions - Inherent power cannot be
invoked to quash proceedings on complaint requiring enquiry and trial. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas
& Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P)
#13: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay in filing complaint - Delay can be condoned. (Janardhan
Mohapatra Vs Saroj Kumar Choudhry), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 :
1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1751 : 1993(6)
OCR 242
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Firm which issued the cheques not made an accused in the complaint Can be impleaded even after the expiry of the period of one month from the date of cause of action envisaged in S.138 of
the act. (Playwood House Vs Wood Craft Products Ltd.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ
(BANKING) 0650 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0311 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0182 : 1997 (88)
COMP. CASES 0565 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0434 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0543 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0604 : 1993 MWN 0140
COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR
(CRL.) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 1274 : 1997 (1)
ALT (CRL.) 0688
#6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Payee or any person authorised by the payee can make a complaint.
(Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC
CRI R 0221
#7: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Jurisdiction - Cheque issued drawn on Bank at
place `S' - Cheque presented for collection at place `J' - Cheque dishonoured - Held, courts at place `J' has jurisdiction to
try the offence. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) :
1997(3) REC CRI R 0221
#8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - Complaint filed by power - of - attomey holder Power - of - attorney executed in favour of Accounts Officer of the Company - He is the person who is having the full
knowledge of the transactions of the Company and he is the right person to speak about the transactions that had taken
place between the complainant - company and the accused persons - Held, complaint is maintainable. (P.A.Verghese Vs
Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA)
#9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Company - All the directors arrayed as accused - Held, it is open to
the accused to make it clear by filing application fixing responsibility - If such an application is made, Court may pass
necessary orders giving notice to the complainant. (P.A.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates), 1997(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA)
#10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque issued by the attorney - Principal is liable as the principal is
always bound by the act of his or her attorney so long the attorney does not exceed his right - In the instant case no
material is on record to hold that attorney acted beyond his power - Held, complaint cannot be quashed. (Sova
Mukherjee Vs Rajiv Mehra), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (CALCUTTA) : 1996(3) ALL INDIA CRI LR 558 :
1997(2) CCR 313 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 480 : 1998(2) REC CIR R 474
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Agreement to sell - Non payment of the balance amount
in time - Parties agreeing to cancel the agreement and refund the amount received - Three cheques issued - Presented at
Amritsar and dishonoured - Jurisdiction of Court at Amritsar challenged an the plea that property is situated at Delhi,
cheques were issued at Delhi and parties had agreed that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction - Agreement denied by the
complainant - Quashing of complaint declined as these are disputed facts and the petitioner/accused may approach the
Court at Amritsar for dropping proceedings. (Ishwari Devi Vs State of Punjab), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 68
(P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0798 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0544 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0557
#12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Can be presented any number of times within a period of six
months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, which ever is earlier - Cause of action
arises only on issuance of notice and non payment within 15 days - When notice is issued and payment is not made
offence stands committed once for all and complaint has to be filed within a month from the date on which cause of
action accrued. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1)
BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Claim satisfied as the amount stood paid - Complaint u/s 138 quashed.
(Hardip Singh Vs Gurnam Singh Randhawa), 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (P&H)
#14: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn on bank at place `M' and cheque presented
for collection at place `M' - Complaint filed at place `T' where transaction creating liability had taken place - No
illegality - Court at place `T' has jurisdiction. (Rahmathullah Vs Ramalingam), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 278
(MADRAS) : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0467
#15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complainant not examined on oath by Magistrate but allowed the
Advocate to examine him - It is violative of S.200 - Defect is, however curable. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs
Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING
CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3)
CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689
#16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Date of return of cheque by Bank
not mentioned in complaint - Date given in notice which has been exhibited - Held, there is no deficiency in complaint.
(Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) :
1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 :
1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP.
CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689
#17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice Dt.10.6.1992 - On the acknowledgement date mentioned as 13.6
- If the notice is dispatched on 13.6.1992 then it is beyond 15 days of intimation of dishonour - Held, at the stage of
deciding whether process is to be issued or not Magistrate is not required to assess the material on record minutely High Court cannot quash the proceedings on this ground. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa
Whoti), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA)
0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING
CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 0715 :
ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689
#18: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Payee or holder in due course can only file a complaint. (Sudesh Kumar
Sharma Vs K.S.Selvamani), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 118 (MADRAS) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR
(MADRAS) 0291 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0334 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0347 : 1995 (86) COMP. CASES 0806 : 1994
(4) CCR 2374 : 1994 (1) LW (CRL.) 0337 : 1997(1) MAD LW (CRI) 337
#19: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque can be presented any number of times within its period of
validity or within a period of six months from the date of issuance and on each occasion when the cheque is dishonoured
the petitioner gets a fresh cause of action to file complaint and the limitation would be computed from that point of time.
(Konark Cables Vs Premier Engineering & Electricals), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (DELHI) : 1995 (1) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0435 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0412 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0092 : 1995 (1)
BCLR 0409 : 1995 (82) COMP. CASES 0452 : 1996 BJ 0045 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0147 : 1994 (3)
CRIMES 1086 : 1994 (56) DLT 0066
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Can neither be extended u/s 473
Cr.P.C. nor the delay condoned u/s 5 of the Limitation Act - A complaint filed beyond one month of the date on which the
cause of action has arisen is barred and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the
complaint. (Cr.P.C., 1973, S.437, Limitation Act, 1963, S.5). (Kunhimuhammed Vs Khadeeja), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 321 (KERALA) : 1995(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0125 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0716 : 1996
(1) BANKING CASES 0019 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0145 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0610 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0019 : 1995
(2) ALT (CRL.) 0420 : 1995 AIHC 2962 : 1995(1) KLT 350
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured for the second time - Complaint filed on that basis
- Complaint is maintainable - It is open to the payee or holder in due course to present the cheque for payment even after
his failure to file a complaint on the basis of the first cause of action accrued to him. (Lakshmanan Vs Sivarama
Krishnan), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (KERALA) : 1995(1) KLT 259 : 1995 CRL. LJ 1384 (KER.)
#22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.138 to 142 not ultra vires
the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions - Matters covered by S.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of ListI (Union List.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.) :
1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT
(CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Fine in excess of Rs.5, 000/- can be imposed by Judicial Magistrate
First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate if situation so warrants even if the power of court to impose fine is limited only
upto Rs.5, 000/- by S.29 Cr.P.C. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 :
1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action accrues only on failure to make
the payment within fifteen days of the service of notice. (M/s.Chahal Engg. & Construction Ltd. Vs M/s.Verma Plywood
Company), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0145 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0845
#25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice sent on 23.4.1992 received on 25.4.1992
- Complaint tiled on 3.6.1992 - Held, complaint is tiled within time as cause of action to tile the complaint arose on
9.5.1992 and the complaint has to be tiled within one month from 10.5.1992. (Aruna Bai Vs Surendra Babu), 1995(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 291 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0528 : 1995 (3)
RCR (CRL.) 0513 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0582 : 1996 BJ 0234 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0538 : 1995 CRL. L.J. 1904 : 1995 (2)
ALT (CRL.) 0510
validity - Cause of action for initiation of prosecution arises only once that is on failure to pay money by drawer after
demand notice - Each presentation and dishonour does not give rise to fresh cause of action but only a fresh right - Once
notice under Section 138 is issued and drawee fails to initiate prosecution within time the right to initiate proceedings u/s
138 will be forfeited - Again after fresh presentation of cheque and dishonour and notice thereon prosecution is not
permissible. (Sadanandan Bhadran Vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1998(2)
APEX COURT JOURNAL 267 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0161 :
1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES
0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998(2) CTC 462 : 1998 (2) KLT 0765 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR
1988 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1998(6) SCC 514 : 1998 SCC(CRI.) 1471
: 1998(2) JCC 91
#11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay - Condonation - Complaint to be filed within period of limitation
prescribed u/s 142 - Complaint cannot be lodged thereafter - Court cannot condone delay as the very jurisdiction of
Court to take cognizance is barred - Provisions of Ss.138 and 142 are special provisions and exclude the operation of
Sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act. (C.Kalegouda Vs K.Sadashivappa), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 222
(KARNATAKA) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0703 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0577 : 1998 (3)
RCR (CRL.) 0574 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0429 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES
0423 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0293 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3539 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0086
#12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Limitation - Limitation to file complaint is one
month from accrual of cause of action - This being a special provision, the general provisions of S.468 Cr.P.C. regarding
limitation not applicable. (Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.468). (Subhash Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan), 2000(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 695 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0535 : 1999 (4)
RCR (CRL.) 0058
#13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Limitation - Delay - Cannot be condoned under any provision of law Period prescribed under the Act is not the period as such, but is a condition precedent as such and that period cannot be
extended by any means. (Mandhadi Ramachandra Reddy Vs Gopume Reddy Ram Reddy), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 113 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0172 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0075 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0398 : 1998 (1)
BANKING CASES 0168 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0571 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0151 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 4275 : 1997 (2)
ALT (CRL.) 0347 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0018 (SN)
#14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint and civil suit pending - Criminal case is not to be stayed till
disposal of suit on the ground that unconditional leave to defend the suit is granted. (Saral Enterprises Vs Ashok Thaper),
1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (BOMBAY)
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Arises only on failure of the
drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days is not
maintainable. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING)
0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553
#16: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Adjournment of complaint to some other date to examine the
complainant under S.200 Cr.P.C. - Does not constitute taking cognizance of the offence. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran),
1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3)
CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553
#17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - - Cheque issued by H and dishonoured - Complaint against H and his
wife as the loan was for purchase of car in the name of wife - Complaint against wife quashed - Provision contemplates
punishment only against the drawer of the cheque but not others. (G.Surya Prabhavathi Vs Nekkanti Subrahmanyeswara
Rao), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 617 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0438 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0788 : 1998 (91)
COMP. CASES 0223 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0543
#18: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is dishonoured has got
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Ponnappan Vs Sibi), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ
(BANKING) 0010 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0077 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0238 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2402
#19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque endorsed in favour of a third party - Cheque dishonoured Complaint filed by original payee - Complaint is not maintainable as the payee as lost every right over the cheque by
endorsing the same in favour of third party. (H.L.Aggarwal Vs Rakesh Aggarwal), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 487
(A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0079 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0045 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0531 : 1997 (1)
ALT (CRL.) 0678
#20: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Notice - 15 days period - First day of receipt of notice has to be
excluded. (Sardar Singh Vs Karam Singh), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 539 (J&K) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0154 :
1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (J&K) 0456 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0671 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0501 :
1997 CRL. L.J. 3751
#21: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Counter complaint by drawer of
cheque u/ss 409, 420 & 463 etc. IPC alleging that cheque by merely signing it was given whereas name and amount was
filled by the payee himself - Quashment of counter complaint sought - Question whether cheque is a forged one cannot
be considered in a separate criminal proceeding - Counter complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law - Proceedings
of counter complaint quashed. (United India Phosphorous Ltd. Vs Vinod Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel), 1998(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 542 (GUJARAT) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0085 : 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0764
#22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - `Person incharge and responsible' - No allegation in the complaint
that petitioner was responsible to the company or was incharge of the company - No act or negligence attributed to him Complaint qua the petitioner quashed. (Raj Kumar Mangla Vs Indo Lowebrau Breweries), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL
COURT CASES 69 (P&H)
#23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn up at Dena Bank, New Delhi - Presented
through bank at Chandigarh - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint at Chandigarh is maintaianble. (Meltro Enterprises Vs
Ramesh Chander), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H)
0844 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0638
#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141, 142-- - Complaint against partners - Firm not a party - Complaint cannot
be quashed. (Aruna Khurana & Ors. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H)
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint - When filed on the last day of limitation by a pleader in the
absence of the complainant - Magistrate can accept the complaint. (Rajan George Vs State of Kerala), 1998(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 374 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0181 : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA)
0016 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0444 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0313 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0519 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.)
0064
#1: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - No complaint filed Cheque again presented on request of accused - Cheque again dishonoured - Drawee competent to prosecute under S.138
on second dishonour. (Premlata Chaddha Vs Surendra Kumar Soni), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (M.P.) : 1999 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0218 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (M.P.) 0486 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0104 :
1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0725 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3657 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0054
#2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - Filing of
complaint after period of limitation - It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period, if
complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. (Ranjitha
Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) :
2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2)
AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2)
KANTLJ 491
#3: PATNA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint Cognizance wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 083 (PATNA)
#4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of
attorney holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint
remitted back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s
200 Cr.P.C. - Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to
consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD)
#5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation 13 days delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be
condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having
regard to the difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 130 (KARNATAKA)
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(b)-- - Proviso - Delay - Condonation - Court can condone delay on the
strength of affidavit of complainant and not on the strength of affidavit of counsel. (Muraleedharan Vs Sreeram
Investment Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 503 (KERALA) : 2006(1) KLT 131 : ILR 2005(4) KER. 604 : (2006)
129 COM CAS 465 (KER) : 2006(39) AIC 894 (KER)
#7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(b)-- - Proviso - Amendment of the proviso - Constitutional validity Mere a discretion has been given to Magistrate to consider an application for condonation of delay - It has not created a
new offence but has merely regulated the procedure of taking cognizance by the Magistrate - Such a regulation of
procedure does not change the nature of the offence with which the accused is tried nor does it create new offence - It is
not prohibited by Art.20(1) of Constitution of India. (R.K.Chawla & Anr. Vs M/s Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals
Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (BOMBAY)
#8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(b)-- - Proviso - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Delay Condonation - Amended proviso which gave discretion to Court to condone delay in filing complaint is applicable when
case was still pending. (R.K.Chawla & Anr. Vs M/s Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & Anr.), 2006(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 320 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (BOMBAY)
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142(c)-- - Pleading - Just because the complaint does not contain the
averment that, that Court has jurisdiction, itself is not sufficient to hold that the complaint is liable to be rejected.
(Satyanarayana Gowda Vs B.Rangappa), 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 87 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0476 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0415 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0667 : 1997 (88)
COMP. CASES 0433 : 1997 BJ 0032 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 2264 : 1996 (4) CCR 0623 : ILR 1996 KARNATKA 1219 : 1996
(2) KARLJ 0162
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 141, 142, 138-- - Company - Complaint against company and its Directors Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of the Directors - A-1 is company and is liable for
prosecution - A-2 is the Chief Managing Director and Signatory, hence liable for prosecution - A-3 is the Director and
authorised signatory and is thus liable for prosecution - A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to
what role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted - A-5 is a financial
controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company, as such he is liable for prosecution Complaint against A-4 quashed. (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited, Mumbai & Ors. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited,
Hyderabad & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 265 (A.P.)
#2: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142, 138-- - Complaint - Must be in writing and signed by the complainant.
(M.A.Abdul Khuthoos Vs M/s Ganesh & Coy Oil Mills), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (MADRAS)
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Condonation of delay - If there is a
delay in filing complaint Court should give notice to the respondent and after hearing the respondent Court should satisfy
itself as to whether complainant had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the specified period - A
detailed inquiry giving opportunity to the parties to adduce oral evidence is not necessary at the stage of taking
cognizance to decide whether delay deserves to be condoned under Section 142 of the Act. (Abdurehiman Vs Sethu
Madhavan), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 136 (KER.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 :
2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 142, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Condonation of delay - An application
or affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay is not necessary - Sufficient cause can be shown in the
complaint itself or in the application for condonation of delay or in the affidavit, if any, or in other materials which would
be sufficient to satisfy the Court that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the
specified period. (Abdurehiman Vs Sethu Madhavan), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) : AIR 2007
NOC 136 (KER.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 : 2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Preliminary evidence - Permissible by
way of affidavit - Unless the case falls within `just exception' contemplated u/s 145 of N.I. Act, Court must receive
affidavits as evidence at the stage of S.200 Cr.P.C. and should not insist on personal appearance and examination of the
complainant to give sworn statement. (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) :
2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Affidavit in support thereof
- Cognizance can be taken relying on affidavit as provision of S.145 of the Act permits filing of affidavit. (Gulam Haidar
Ali Khan Vs Managing Partner, Shirdi Sai Finance Corporation, S.Kota), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 717 (A.P.) :
2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 903 (A.P.) : 2006(2) DCR 701 : 2006(6) ALJ 700
#3: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Initial statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. can be
given on affidavit. (Panda Leasing & Properties Ltd. Vs Hemant Kumar Moharana), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES
691 (ORISSA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 597 (ORISSA) : 2006(2) CRIMES 220 (ORISSA)
ALLMR(CRI) 1114 : 2006(1) BOMCR(CRI) 264 : 2006(3) CURCRIR 282 : 2006(4) MAHLJ 381
#15: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145-- - Provision of S.145 of the Act is retrospective in operation and is
applicable to cases pending before the provision came into force. (Magma Leasing Ltd. Vs State of W.B & Ors.), 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (CALCUTTA)
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145(2), 138-- - Affidavits - Evidence of prosecution as well as evidence of
accused and defence witnesses can be taken on affidavit - In case evidence is taken on affidavit then after an application
is made by other party under sub-section (2) of S.145, it is not necessary to again record examination-in-chief of the
witness whose affidavit of examination-in-chief is already filed - On filing of an application u/s 145(2) witness must be
made available for cross examination by the rival party. (M/s Indo International Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra &
Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (BOMBAY)
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 138-- - Recording statement of complainant - Stands substantially
dispensed with by insertion of S.145 in the NI Act - Affidavit of complainant can be filed - However, it is open to the
discretion of the Judge to put questions to the complainant if he considers it necessary. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar
Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR
(CRI.) 3075
#2: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Affidavits - For the purpose
of issuing process, evidence of complainant can be given by him on affidavit and can be read in evidence in any enquiry,
trial or other proceeding - Court on application of prosecution or accused, summon and examine any person giving
evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein. (Mahendra Kumar Vs Armstrong & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 75 (M.P.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (M.P.)
#1: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 146-- - A close reading of these sections reveal that they relate to post
cognizance operation and never treat to the pre-cognizance stages. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar
Bhatta), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA)
#2: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 145, 146-- - Provisions of Sections 145 and 146 N.I. Act are not mandatory
in nature and option has been left open for the parties to take recourse to these provisions or to the normal provisions
contemplated under the Cr.P.C. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA)
#1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise during pendency of appeal
- Written compromise also filed - Conviction set aside - Accused acquitted. (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of
Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN)
#2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise after conviction - Table
appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted to offences under Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction and sentence set
aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H)
#3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise in revision - Offence under
Act is compoundable - Complainant permitted to compound offence - Accused acquitted. (Santosh Kumari Vs State of
Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 814 (RAJASTHAN)
#4: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Offence u/s 138 is compoundable without permission of Court.
(Sabu George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 040 (KERALA)
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Compounding of offence after verdict of conviction and
sentence becomes final - In such a case High Court can exercise its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as also under Article 226 and
227 of Constitution - In such a case power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked after disposal of revision notwithstanding the
bar u/s 362 Cr.P.C. (Sabu George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA)
#6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Parties
compounding offence during revision - Allowed - Conviction set aside. (Surindera Rani Vs Smt.Kiran Bala & Anr.),
2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 208 (P&H)
#7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Parties compromised
during pendency of revision - Amount of cheque and damages paid - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Gurmeet Singh
Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 075 (P&H)
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Table
appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted as provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of IPC and none other.
(R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258
#9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence by Advocate When authority is granted by a litigant in favour of Advocate which empowers the latter to enter into a settlement, any
settlement arrived at, on behalf of a party to a lis is binding on the parties. (R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2)
APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258
#10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise after conviction - Order of
conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H)
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is
compoundable. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052
(S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1)
RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 :
2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1)
SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245
#12: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount paid and complainant
received the same - It shall be taken that parties have compounded the offence - With the amendment introduced in S.147
of the Act, every offence punishable under the Act is compoundable. (M.A.Mohana Pai Vs V.A.Jabbar & Anr.), 2005(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA)
#13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Revision against Compounding of offence - Compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act can be done during trial of case as well as
by the High Court or Court or Session while acting in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
(Ramesh Chander Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 439 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 351 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 214 (P&H) : 2007(1) RECCIVR 217
#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Compounding of offence - Dishonour of cheque - Accused
convicted - Accused making payment of cheque - Acquittal cannot be recoded on this ground - Accused can be acquitted
if parties arrive at settlement - In the instant case in view of peculiar facts of the case, Court itself recording settlement
and acquitted the accused. (Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s A.P.Heavy Machinery & Engg.Ltd.), 2006(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 188 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 25 (A.P.)
#15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Direction to pay double the
amount of cheque as compensation - Appellate Court maintained conviction but amount of compensation reduced During pendency of revision in High Court parties compromised and payment made towards full and final settlement of
dues - Held, offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable and there is no reason to refuse compromise between parties Order of conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted of the charge against him. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs
Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268
(S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6)
RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1)
AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245
#16: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Compromise and compounding - Not synonyms - Any dispute can
be compromised between the parties if the terms are not illegal - But only a compoundable offence allowed by law can
be compounded. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB)
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Offences under the Act committed prior to insertion of S.147 are
compoundable - However, provision is not applicable to concluded matters. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman), 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB)
#18: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Scope - Provision of S.147 of the Act only removes the prohibition
in Cr.P.C. against compounding offences not mentioned in the tables in S.320(1) and (2). (Sudheer Kumar Vs
Kunhiraman), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238
(KERALA) (DB)
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Offence under Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable when
appeal or revision is pending. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) :
2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB)
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Compounding of offence - There is no provision under S.320 Cr.P.C.
or Negotiable Instruments Act to accept or permit compounding after conviction has become final and no appeal or
revision is pending against conviction. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616
(KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB)
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - High Court cannot reverse, alter or modify conviction which has
become final by its own order passed in a revision petition, by using power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. taking note of subsequent
events like compounding of the case. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616
(KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB)
#22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Parties compromised during pendency of
revision petition in High Court - In view of Section 147 of the Act complainant permitted to compound the offence and
order of conviction and sentence set aside and complainant ordered to be acquitted. (Ami Lal Vs Mahavir Prasad
Surendra Mohan), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 479
(RAJASTHAN) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 69 : AIR 2007 NOC 92 (RAJ.) : 2006(1) ALJ(EE) 41 : 2006(1) ALLMR
1 JS
1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 117-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Drawee is entitled to
compensation - Remedy of compensation is in addition to common law remedy for recovery of amount covered by
cheque. (M/s A.M.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.)
1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 118(1)-- - Cash cheque is a legal and valid negotiable instrument - Non
mentioning of payee's name and the striking off the words `or bearer' does not make the cheque invalid. (Michael
Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA)
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 118(g), 9-- - Bearer cheque - Dishonoured due to insufficiency of
funds - There is presumption under S.118(g) that holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course - Under
Section 118(a), there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration - This
presumption is, however, rebuttable. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248
(KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0257 : 1998 (2) BANKING
CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 : 1998 (1) KLT 0384
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 124, 5, 6, 7-- - Pay order - Is not a cheque - Dishonour of pay order Provision is not attracted. (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab & Sind Bank), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130
(BOMBAY) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0762
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Failure on part of
complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion
that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY)
#2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption
- Rebuttal - Loan of Rs.25 lacs - Complainant himself was in debt - No evidence produced to prove financial viability of
complainant to raise such huge amount - Conviction of accused merely because he admitted his signature on disputed
cheque not proper - It does not relieve complainant from proving pre-existing debt or legal liability to pay amount shown
in cheque. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 474 (BOMBAY)
#3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption
- Rebuttal - Not necessary for accused to produce evidence - Accused can discharge the onus placed on him even on the
basis of material brought on record by the complainant. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar
Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY)
#4: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Legally enforceable debt' - Lack of
pleading - There is no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a
subsisting liability - The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability is on the accused which they have
to discharge in the trial. (First Learning Quest Private Ltd. Vs M/s Tera Construction Private Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL
COURT CASES 578 (DELHI)
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/s 139 - Available only
when it is proved that cheque was drawn by accused - To draw a cheque it must be prepared by the drawer himself or
cause the relevant details in the cheque to be filled up by another person under his instructions but the cheque shall be
signed by the drawer himself - Name of payee not written - No evidence that complainant entered his name as payee as
per instructions of accused - Held, a mere signature in the cheque or a writing of the amount or date in the cheque is not
sufficient to conclude that the cheque is drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. (Jose Vs P.C.Joy), 2008(4)
CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA)
#6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque without consideration - Onus to
prove is on person who asserts so - Accused neither examined himself nor examined any witness - Burden of proving
that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of any debt or other liability was thus not discharged. (Kalim M.Khan
Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY)
#7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Presumption available u/ss 138, 139 & 118 are all
rebuttable presumptions. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765
(BOMBAY)
#8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issuance of cheque in discharge of legal
liability - Presumption as to - Rebuttable - To rebut presumption it is not necessary to lead positive evidence Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record - For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to
raise a probable defence - Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied
upon. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB)
#9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Rebuttal of presumption as to issuance
of cheque in discharge of legal liability - Complainant a businessman not producing any account to prove advancement
of loan - Failure to produce even loan agreement - Presumption stands rebutted - To rebut presumption accused need not
to lead positive evidence - Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record. (Raman Finance Corporation
Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB)
#10: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures admitted - Held, once
signatures in the impugned cheques were admitted then there is presumption u/s 139 of the Act. (A.B.M.Raja Sah Vs
B.M.S.Srinivasa Sah), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (MADRAS) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402
(MADRAS)
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttable presumption Presumption that cheque was issued for a debt or liability is in favour of holder of cheque - This is a rebuttable
presumption which can be rebutted only by the person who drew the cheque. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H)
#12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - The rebuttal
would not have to be conclusively established - However, evidence must be adduced in support of the defence that the
Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable - Standard of
reasonability is that of a prudent man. (M/s.Coldspot Vs M/s.Naik Hotels & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 070
(BOMBAY)
#13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused alleging misuse of
cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should
be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569
(S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010
#14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards time barred debt
- Once the cheque is issued, accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt - Time barred
debt is also valid consideration. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763
(KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA)
#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued against loan - Loan
denied - No proof of lending money - Even month or year of loan not disclosed - Held, when complainant does not place
on record any material of lending money then it is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut the presumption
available in favour of the complainant - Accused not guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (G.Veeresham Vs S.Shiva
Shankar & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (A.P.)
#16: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharging of liability - Blank signed
cheque given as security not taken back - No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability
was discharged - Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable.
(K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA)
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Blank cheque - It cannot be presumed that an implied authority
is given to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt etc. - There must be allegation in complaint
and evidence that blank cheque was issued with implied authority to holder to fill up the same. (Kamalammal Vs
C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168
(KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2)
RECCIVR 875
#18: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Even if the signature in
the cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed by the accused. (Kamalammal Vs
C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168
(KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2)
RECCIVR 875
#19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - It is for drawer to rebut
presumption - In absence of rebuttal evidence, it is to be presumed that cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other
liability. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA)
#20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Cheque issued towards
investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes - Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not
issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability - Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process
cannot be faulted with. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Bhave & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY)
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a complaint u/s 138 of
the Act, Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The
burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman
Vs State of Kerala & Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA)
#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a)
are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.)
#23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of
proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability - Inference can be drawn not only from the materials
brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon - Burden of proof
on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 023 (S.C.)
#24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Denial of issuance of cheque - Held,
once cheque is duly singed by accused, mere denial of issuing cheque is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available
u/s 139 of the Act. (J.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ
393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 :
2007(4) KANTLJ 489
#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Presumption Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused
can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption
could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through
the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was
issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that
existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The
standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally
upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 537 (BOMBAY)
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Debt and liability - Payment stopped on the ground that cheques were
not supported by consideration - Under Section 139 it has to be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of debt
or other liability - Burden of proof is on accused that cheques were not supported by consideration. (K.I.George Vs
Muhammed Master), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (KERALA)
#2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred debt - Loan transaction taking place
in 1994 and cheque for repayment of loan issued for the year 1999 - Loan amount became time barred in the year 1997 Held, there is no legal bar for the debtor agreeing to pay the time barred debt - No fresh consideration is required for
debtor's promise to pay the time barred debt - Cheque constitutes an agreement or promise by the debtor to pay the time
barred debt - Drawer held guilty of offence. (H.Narasimha Rao Vs Venkataram R.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670
(KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 975 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) KAR LJ 238 : ILR 2006 KAR
4242
#3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course - Means any person who
for consideration became the possessor of promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer or the payee
or indorsee thereof - `A' gave loan to `B' - Bank purchased cheque from `B' - `B' made an endorsement in favour of Bank
- Bank becomes holder in due course - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint against `A' maintainable. (Bhartiya Khand &
Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 ; 2006(65) ALLLR
16 SOC
#4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque given as collateral security - Cheque
was never meant to be deposited - If such a cheque is deposited and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability.
(Goa Handicrafts, Rural & Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s.Samudra Ropes Pvt. Ltd.),
2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1009 (BOMBAY)
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 43-- - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil
case - Civil case not withdrawn - Held, when cheque is issued for some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet
another promise i.e. withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then
cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of
the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala),
2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ
3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1)
CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.) 2005(3) KER. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 562
#6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Partnership firm - Dissolution - One partner issued cheque to the other
towards his liability - Presumption is that cheque was for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
(Abdul Hameed Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 194 (RAJASTHAN)
#7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments
effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988. (K.K.Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors.), 2003(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI.)
BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6)
BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ
838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0497
#8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued to
retiring partner - Specific plea of accused that complainant is still a partner - Evidence as to retirement from partnership
not adduced - When there is failure to prove factum of retirement from partnership the only reasonable conclusion could
be that there was no existing liability as on date of issuance of cheque - No interference in order of acquittal.
(K.A.Prakash Rao Vs U.Indira Devi & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.P.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 518 (A.P.)
#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Loan taken of Rs.30 lakhs and promissory note executed - Amount not
paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding - On repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards
discharge of loan amount - Cheque dishonoured - Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only
as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque, there was no existing liability - It is for accused to rebut
presumption contained in S.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited Vs M.Mal
Reddy), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (MADRAS)
(BOMBAY)
#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a)
are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
(Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.)
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused alleging misuse of
cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should
be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569
(S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010
#3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Presumption Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused
can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption
could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through
the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was
issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that
existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The
standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally
upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 537 (BOMBAY)
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Constitution of India, Seventh Schedule, Union
List, Entries 45, 46 - Words `Banking, Bills of Exchange, Cheques, Promissory Notes and other like instruments' Occurring in Entries Nos.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude - Held, Parliament
has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayuri
Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES
0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.138 to 142 not
ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions - Matters covered by S.138 fall within Entries 45 and
46 of List-I (Union List.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480
(A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 :
1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 140, 141, 142-- - Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect
amendments effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988. (K.K.Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors.),
2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT
(CRI.) BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 :
2002(6) BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.) 781 : 2002(4)
MAD LJ 838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANK
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 43-- - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued for withdrawal of
civil case - Civil case not withdrawn - Held, when cheque is issued for some other complementary facts or fulfilment of
yet another promise i.e. withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then
cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of
the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala),
2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ
3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1)
CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.) 2005(3) KER. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 562
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 140-- - `Mens rea' is not an essential ingredient for constituting an
offence under S.138 - S.140 which excludes the defence that the drawer had no reason to believe that the cheque issued
by him may be dishonoured on presentment not unreasonable or violative of article 14 of the Constitution. (Mayuri
Pulse Mills & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES
0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702
#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Power of Attorney holder can initiate criminal proceedings on
behalf of his Principal. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 586 (S.C.)
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - An allegation in
the complaint that the named accused are Directors of the company itself would usher in the element of their acting for
and on behalf of the company and of their being in charge of the company. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs
Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056
(S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - A person in the
commercial world having a transaction with a company is entitled to presume that the Directors of the company are in
charge of the affairs of the company - If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the
company, it is for the Directors to establish it at the trial. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu &
Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC
3273
#4: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of Company,
Chairman and Vice-President - Petition by Vice-President for quashing of proceedings - Specific plea in complaint that
Vice-President negotiated with the complainant in respect of the transaction and held out assurances that liability would
be cleared - It will be decided during trial if Vice-President has acted on behalf of company i.e. accused No.1 or not Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Devender Raina Vs State & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 181
(DELHI)
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Pleading as to
requirement of S.141 of the Act - Held, complaint has to be read as a whole - If the substance of the allegations made in
the complaint fulfills the requirements of S.141 of the Act then complaint has to proceed and is required to be tried with In construing a complaint, a hypertechnical approach is not to be adopted. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty &
Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA)
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Consisting of two
partners - Cheque signed by both the partners - Complaint against firm and both the partners - No pleading in complaint
that at the time the offence was committed both the partners were incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of
business of the firm - Held, when complaint is in relation to a firm of which there are only two partners, it is sufficient
when it is pleaded that the firm has two partners who are also arrayed as accused persons. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs
V.A.Anty & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA)
#7: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Composite notice of more than
one cheque is valid. (Subhash Sahni Vs M/s.Auro Spinning Mills), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (H.P.)
#8: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Being Director
of the company a Director is not jointly and severally liable for the acts of the company - No averment in complaint that
at the time when offence was committed accused No.2 to 7 were incharge and were responsible to the company for the
conduct of the business of the company - Complaint against accused 2 to 7 quashed. (Anoop Jhalani Vs State & Anr.),
2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 350 (DELHI)
#9: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Accused summoned being
Directors of Company - Defence of accused that they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company - Held, that
complainant had pleaded in his complaint that petitioners were directors of the company and were in-charge and
responsible for the affairs and business of the Company - No ground to quash the complaint. (R.L.Verma & Ors. Vs
J.K.Verma & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 084 (DELHI)
#10: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company - Directors - Sleeping
director - If any Director of the company claims that he was not the person looking after the affairs of the company this
fact has to be proved by him by leading cogent evidence before the trial Court - A creditor is not supposed to know are
the sleeping directors or actively involved directors in the management of the company - Resignation of the petitioner
from the company is a defence of the petitioner which he can take before the trial Court - Petition to quash summoning
order dismissed. (Bharat Poonam Chand Shah Vs Dominors Printech India Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 792 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (DELHI)
#11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint against
Chairman, Joint Managing Director and three Directors - Allegation that they were officers and responsible for the affairs
of the company - It is sufficient compliance within the meaning of S.141 of the Act - Complaint cannot be quashed on
the ground that there is no averment they were incharge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the
company. (Paresh P.Rajda Vs State of Maharashtra), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 413 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 253 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 192 (S.C.) : 2008(2) KLT 983 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC
2357
#12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Resigned before
cheques were issued - However, From No.32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies much after the cheques were
issued - Held, the effect of delayed presentation before the Registrar of companies can only be decided after parties lead
evidence - Order quashing proceedings set aside. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.),
2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship firm - Complaint filed
against proprietorship firm through its proprietor - Complaint is maintainable so long as the identification of human
individual behind the curtain is possible without any mistake. (Natesha Securities Vs Vinayak Waman Mokashi & Anr.),
2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY)
#14: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Additional accused Averments unspecific and general - No particular role assigned to petitioner - Summoning order concerning petitioner
quashed - However, trial Court will be at liberty to exercise its power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused at
a later stage. (Dev Sareen Vs DCM Financial Ltd.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 658 (DELHI)
#15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Liability of company where substantive
sentence is provided - A company can be proceeded against in a criminal proceeding even where imposition of
substantive sentence is provided for. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604
(S.C.)
#16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of signatory
without prosecution of company itself - Difference of opinion as to whether signatory only can be prosecuted without
prosecution of company - In view of difference of opinion matter referred to larger bench. (Aneeta Hada Vs
M/s.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.C.)
#17: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Averment that applicant
is the promoter and controller of the company - No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller
is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant - No averment as to how appellant is responsible for
dishonour of cheque - Held, averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order
quashed. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD)
#18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Joint account of husband and wife Husband issued cheque drawn to joint bank account to discharge his liability - Wife neither having dealings with the
petitioner nor drawer of cheque - Held, wife is not liable - Proceedings against wife quashed. (Smt.Bandeep Kaur Vs
S.Avneet Singh), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (P&H)
#19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- Proviso - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - No
categorical averment either in complaint or in the statement on oath that accused Nos.5 & 6 were incharge of or were
responsible to the company for the conduct of business of company at the time, the offence was committed - One of the
accused was a nominee director and enjoyed the immunity provided by S.27(3) of State Financial Corporations Act Held, that second proviso to S.141 of the Act was only clarificatory in nature and clarified what S.27 of SFCA provided Accused Nos.5 & 6 discharged. (Skyline Aquatech Exports Ltd., Karnataka & Ors. Vs Sachima Agro Industries Pvt.Ltd.,
Goa), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (BOMBAY)
#20: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Petitioner
resigned as Director of company - Petitioner placed on record photocopy of Form No.32 - Held, that it is a document
which the company is required to furnish before the Registrar of Companies in terms of S.303(2) of the Companies Act This document is not a public document in terms of S.74 Evidence Act - Such document even issued by public authority
in terms of S.76 of the Act does not fall within the category of 'Conclusive Proof' as defined u/s 4 Evidence Act - Such a
document falls within the category of 'shall presume' - The fact whether petitioner resigned from the company before
issuance of cheque still remains in the category of disputed fact which is required to be proved or disproved at the stage
of trial - Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Budhmal Bhansali @ B.Bhansali Vs The State & Anr.), 2008(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 573 (CALCUTTA)
#21: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by Company Summoning order - Challenged on the ground that it is not averred in the complaint as to in what manner accused was
responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Also no specific overt act attributed to petitioner regarding his
involvement in the commission of alleged offence - Prosecution evidence already closed and case fixed for defence
evidence - Proper course was to allow the proceeding to go on to come to its logical conclusion, one way or the other -
Court declined to interfere in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. (Sona P.Walvekar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.),
2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (CALCUTTA)
#22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is not necessary that in the
complaint the words u/s 141 of the Act should be verbatim quoted - The purpose would be served if the averments, by
whatever words used, makes it clear that the person was in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the
business of the company. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY)
#23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cheque dishonoured and in lieu
thereof second cheque issued - Cheque number of second cheque not mentioned in notice - Held, it cannot be said that
notice is not valid. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY)
#24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - 'Accused are Directors and
Executive of the Company' - Meaning - When Director is also executive, he is an officer with executive powers, charged
with administrative work and is a person with senior managerial responsibility in the business - No fault can be found in
the complaint. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY)
#25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - S.141 of the Act
provides for a constructive liability - A legal fiction has been created thereby - The statute being a penal one, should
receive strict construction - It requires strict compliance of the provision - Specific averments in the complaint petition so
as to satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act are imperative - Mere fact that at one point of time some role has
been played by the accused may not by itself be sufficient to attract the constructive liability under Section 141 of the
Act. (DCM Financial Services Ltd. Vs J.N.Sareen & Anr.), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 446 (S.C.) : 2008(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 266 (S.C.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 303 (S.C.) : 2008(3) RCR(CRL.) 152 :
2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3) RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255
#1: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice - Prosecution of person
incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Statutory notice to every person, including
Director, who is sought to be prosecuted, is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB)
#2: GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Nothing in complaint to show that
accused Nos.1 & 2 were responsible for conduct of business of the company at relevant time and nothing to show that
accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with or abetted accused Nos.3 & 4 in respect of alleged offence - Proceedings against
accused Nos.1 & 2 quashed. (T.R.Gupta & Anr. Vs M/s Vascon), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (GAUHATI)
#3: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director's responsibility Complainant has to specifically show as to how and in what manner the accused alleged director was responsible for the
conduct of business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its function - Allegations bald and general
in nature - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (Ashok Newatia Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
277 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 66 (DELHI)
#4: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director and Director Liability - In case of Managing Director a presumption arises that the offence is committed with his active knowledge,
consent or supervision for the reasons by virtue of the designation of his office - It is not so in case of Directors - To
fasten liability on a Director it has to be proved that the person named as the Director was responsible to the company
and was in charge of the affairs of the Company pertaining to the conduct of the business of the company. (Sarla Jain Vs
Central Bank of India), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI)
#5: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Complaint by Managing
Partner of a firm in respect of a cheque issued in favour of firm is maintianble. (Nasar Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (KERALA)
#6: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Directors - Sleeping Director - Not a
ground to quash proceedings as it is a matter of evidence. (Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Vs Brahm Prakash Sharma), 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 412 (DELHI)
#7: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Banker's cheque - Account attached by Income
Tax Department - Issuance of Bankers cheque being the result of an oversight or negligence - Offence u/s 138 of the Act
is not made out - Complaint quashed. (Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. Vs State & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 442 (DELHI)
#8: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Stand of petitioners that they have no
privity of contract with complainant company - On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not
gathered - Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon
actual offender - Proceedings quashed against petitioners. (M/s.Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs
State of West Bengal & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA)
#9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Managing Director negotiated loan Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan - Managing Director resigned - Cheque dishonoured thereafter Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned - It was he who had taken
responsibility to accept loan. (J.P.S.Sandhu Vs M/s.Patiala Auto Enterprises etc.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654
(P&H) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H)
#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of authorised signatory Notice not given to company - Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who
was incharge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business - Process issued against accused
quashed. (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY)
#11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Mere fact that proceedings have
been quashed against the accused will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a
case for taking cognizance against him has been made out in the additional evidence led before it. (Kapal Mehra Vs
Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY)
#12: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm - Partner - Liability - There
must be a specific allegations and averments regarding the role played by such a partner - Bald allegation that such a
partner took active part in the day-to-day business affairs of the firm without any material in support thereof is not
sufficient - Complaint against petitioner quashed. (P.Snehalatha Vs M/s Victory Leathers), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 50 (MADRAS)
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Persons sought to be made
criminally liable - Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the
relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a
company. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) :
2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY)
#14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - There should be a specific
allegation in the complaint as to the part played by a Director in the transaction - There should be clear and unambiguous
allegation as to how the Directors are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company Description should be clear - In absence of any averment or specific evidence the complaint is not entertainable.
(N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.)
#15: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Notice - Prosecution of person
incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - Notice to company - Director or person incharge
and responsible for the conduct of business of company cannot be prosecuted when notice is not issued to him - Statutory
notice to every person, including Director, who is sought to be prosecuted is mandatory. (B.Raman & Ors. Vs Shasun
Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.), 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT
CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB)
#16: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Agent - Petitioner neither a director,
manager, secretary or other officer of the company - Petitioner not incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business
of the company - Petitioner may have handled transactions for and on behalf of the company in India - This does not
bring petitioner within the purview of S.141 of the Act - Summoning order qua petitioner quashed. (Birthe Foster Vs
State & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 075 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (DELHI)
#17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - Liability - Pleading - There should be an
assertion in the complaint that the named accused are directors of the company and that they are incharge of and
responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.) : 2007(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5)
SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) :
2007 CLC 860
#18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Directors - A person is entitled to presume that directors of
the company are incharge of the affairs of the company - If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the
memorandum or articles of the company, it is for the directors to establish it at the trial. (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206
(S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ
511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT
1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860
#19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - When the offender is a company, every person, who at the
time when the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the
business of the company, shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company. (N.Rangachari Vs
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited), 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES
206 (S.C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2)
RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 ; 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.J. 2448 : 2007(2)
KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860
#20: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is necessary to specifically aver in
complaint that at the time offence was committed, the person accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of
business of company - Without such an averment in complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be
satisfied - No such averment in complaint - Complaint qua petitioner quashed. (Hazi Abadullah & Ors. Vs State of
Rajasthan & Anr.), 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 393 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110
(RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 59 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 755
#21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - The liability of a Director
must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.),
2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 127 (S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 :
2007(3) KLT 672 (SC)
#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Vicarious liability Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for an offence committed by the Company
that he was in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business - Such requirement must be read
conjointly and not disjunctively. (S.M.S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(1) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 668 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127
(S.C.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC)
#23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Only such person is liable
if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the
business of the company. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.)
#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Allegations in complaint
that respondent accused Nos.2 to 12 were Directors/persons responsible for carrying out business of company and the
liability of accused persons was joint and several - High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show
that respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed proceedings against
respondents - No reason to interfere. (N.K.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.C.)
#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - Evidence is not required to
be pleaded but there has to be a basic averment as to how one is involved in the alleged crime. (Kapal Mehra Vs
Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY)
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partner - Not liable if he merely derives profits
from the company - To make a partner liable he must be in charge of and responsible to the firm in the conduct of
business of firm. (Mohandas Vs Jayasamudri Trading Co.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 380 (KERALA) : AIR 2007
NOC 33 (KER.) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776
#2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Proprietorship concern - An employee of a
proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the Act. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes),
2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 709 (S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5)
SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 :
2007(5) SCC 103
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Vicarious liability - Complaint must
contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview of S.141 of the Act so as to make some persons
other than company vicariously liable therefor. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes), 2007(2) APEX COURT
JUDGMENTS 001 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709
(S.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR
2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103
#4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Complaint against firm and its five partners Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm - No ground made out to
quash the proceedings. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H)
#5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Company - Complaint against company and its
Directors - Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed, the person
accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the company - This averment is an essential
requirement of Section 141 of the Act - Without this averment in complaint, requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to
be satisfied. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 033 (P&H)
#6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Notice given to company - Separate
notice to Managing Director who signed the cheque on behalf of company is not required - Proceedings against
Managing Director cannot be quashed. (Rajkumar Malhotra Vs Bhanwarlal), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 466
(RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 539 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 152 (RAJASTHAN) :
2007(1) ALJ(EE) 92 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 553
#7: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Nominated Director - Director
nominated by IDBI as financial assistance extended to company - IDBI a financial institution controlled by Central Govt.
- Director nominated by a Central Government or State Government or a Financial Corporation owned or controlled by
Central Government or State Government cannot be prosecuted for dishonour of cheque - Proceedings against petitioner
quashed. (V.K.Saxena Vs State), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
822 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 262 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 592 : 2006(132) DLT 498
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director - No averment in complaint
as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of business of Company or otherwise
responsible to it in regard to its functioning - Held, even if allegations in complaint are taken to be correct in its entirety
the same do not disclose any offence against the Director - Proceedings against Director quashed. (Saroj Kumar Poddar
Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (S.C.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 842
(S.C.) : 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 243 (S.C.) : JT 2007(2) SC 233 : 2007(2) SCALE 36 : 2007 AIR SCW
656 : 2007(4) MAH LJ 421 : 2007(3) SCC 693 : 2007(58) ACC 1090 : 2007(52) AIC 235 : AIR 2007 SC 912 : 2007
CLC 163
#9: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Company and its Directors
approached complainant for grant of loan - As per loan agreement Company issued three cheques, which were
dishonoured - A2 M.D. of company and A3 to A6 its Directors - Plea to quash complaint on the ground that there was no
proper averment and notice of offence was framed mechanically - If there are requisite averments in complaint under
Ss.138 and 141 of N.I. Act then matter has to proceed for expeditious disposal and defence is to be raised before
concerned Magistrate and is not to be considered in a petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. - No interference called for.
(G.S.Saluja Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (DELHI)
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Co-operative Society - Secretary signatory of cheque - Signatory of
cheque if ceases to be Secretary on the date when offence was committed cannot be prosecuted u/s 138 of the Act Crucial date for determining date when offence was committed is when cheque is returned by the bank unpaid - A person
can be prosecuted for offence u/s 138 only if at the time the offence was committed he was in charge of and responsible
to the company for the conduct of business of the company. (Kairali Marketing & Processing Co-op.Society Ltd. Vs
Pullengadi Service Co-op. Society Ltd.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 624 (KERALA)
#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Prosecution of Company, its
Chairman, Managing Director and Director - Petitioner denied that he was ever Chairman of Company - No evidence
except affidavit of complainant - Petitioner did not sign the cheque - Authentic and unimpeachable documents placed on
record to show that petitioner was not Chairman of Company and inspite of opportunity granted complainant did not
controvert the same - Prima facie evidence shows that petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence and he cannot be
held vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company - Summoning of petitioner quashed. (Shekhar
Suman Vs Narender & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 769
(P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 224 (P&H) : 2007(4) AKAR 554 : 2007(50) ALLINDCAS 322
#12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Part time Director - No averment in
complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day business of the company or was in charge of and
responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence - Petitioner not a
signatory of the cheque - Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (O.P.Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.), 2007(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H)
#13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Merely being a director of a
company is not sufficient to make the person liable - There should be a clear averment in the complaint that at the time
the offence was committed, the person accused was in charge of, and responsible for the conduct of business of the
company - Without there being such a averment in the complaint requirement of S.141 cannot be said to be satisfied.
(2005(2) Apex Court Judgments 544 (S.C.) : 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 483 (S.C.) : 2005(4) Criminal Court Cases 502
(S.C.) Followed). (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. Vs R.B.S.Channabasavardhya), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01
(S.C.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S.C.) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.C.) : 2006
CRILJ 4602 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56)
ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR
228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS
680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP)
SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ
161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 :
2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190
#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - If certain crimes are committed by its officials, the company
is liable for prosecution - When company is convicted, the liability can be only in terms of fine as the company is
responsible for the acts of commissions and omissions of the persons working for it. (Balaji Trading Company Vs
Kejriwal Paper Ltd.), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.P.)
#15: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence by company - Quashing of complaint Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that petitioner ceased to be Director of company with effect from 18.5.2003
- Cheque bounced on 25.6.2003 - Complainant seriously disputed the genuineness of resolution passed by Board of
Directors - Disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in summary proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. (Atul Kohli &
Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 676 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452
(P&H)
#16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint against partners - Complaint not
disclosing that at the time the offence was committed petitioner was in any way incharge of and was responsible for the
conduct of the business of the firm - Complaint quashed against petitioner. (Suman Madanlal Bora Vs State of
Maharashtra & Ors.), 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 356 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590
(BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 324 (NOC) : AIR 2006 BOM 921 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 539 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR
HCR 648 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 434 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 707 : 2006(1) BOM CRI R 243 : 2006(4) MAH
LJ 369
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Firm - Managing partner issued cheque to discharge liability of firm Cheque dishonoured - It is not essential to prosecute the firm/company also before the person in charge is sought to be
prosecuted. (N.Radhakrishnan Vs A.C.Thomas & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (KERALA) : 2006(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 431 (KERALA)
#18: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Company - Notice - Prosecution of company and directors - Notice to
company - It is not required that each and every Director of company should be served with notice. (Madan Aggarwal Vs
State & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI)
#19: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Registered society - Cheque issued by Secretary for and on behalf of
society - Cheque dishonoured - Secretary is liable u/s 138 of the Act even if he ceases to be its Secretary. (Shaji Vs
Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Firm - Dishonour of cheque - Criminal liability is not confined to the
signatory of the cheque alone but extends to non signatories also provided other conditions in that regard are satisfied.
(Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala), 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174
quite heavy - Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the
matter in the presence of Ex-President of Kammavar Sangam - Delay condoned. (S.Rajaram Vs S.Seenivasan), 2008(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS)
#12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation Insertion of proviso to S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay - However, insertion
of the proviso is not retrospective in nature. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086
#13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Issuance of process Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.),
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) :
2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI)
1339
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 53-- - Legal representative of the payee or holder in due course
can file a complaint u/s 138 read with S.142 of the Act if other conditions in the sections are satisfied. (Chandra Babu Vs
Remani), 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 641 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 12 (KERALA)
#15: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint beyond period of limitation Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause - Amendment in provision of S.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature
and is applicable to pending cases. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 535 (GUJARAT)
#16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Cannot be
condoned without notice to accused. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs M/s.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Ltd.), 2007(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA)
#17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Co-operative Society - President on
behalf of Society can file complaint. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.S.Ranga), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) :
2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H)
#18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Territorial jurisdiction - Complaint filed
in a Court within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court and Writ petition thereagainst filed in High Court of Kerala - For an
offence u/s 138 of the Act complainant is required to prove the facts constituting the cause of action therefor - Agreement
entered into within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court - Project for which the supply of stone chips and
transportation was to be carried out was also within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court - Payments were obviously
required to be made within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court where either the contract had been entered into or
where payment was to be made - Held, Kerala High Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as no part of cause of action
arose within its jurisdiction. (Musaraf Hossain Khan Vs Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors.), 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 107 (S.C.) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S.C.) : 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 194 (S.C.) :
2006 CRILJ 1683 (S.C.) : AIR 2006 SC 1288 : 2006 AIR SCW 1137 : 2006(2) ALLCJ 1001 : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 163 :
2006(4) ALLINDCAS 265 : 2006(2) ALLMR 140 : 2006(2) ALLWC 1749 : 2006(1) ANDHLD 653 : 2006(1) BANK
CLR 632 : 2006(2) BANKCAS 515 : 2006 BANKJ 1 : 2006(3) BOMCR 98 : 2006(2) CTC 57 : 2006(130) COMCS
390 : 2006(4) COMLJ 419 SC : 2006(72) COR LA 55 : 2006 CRLLR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 484 : 2006 CRLLR (SC&MP)
SC 484 : 2006(2) CURCC 71 : 2006(1) CUR CRIR 178 : 2006(2) EAST CRIC 162 : 2006(2) ICC 708 : ILR (KANT
#19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Power of attorney holder - Can file complaint on account of
dishonour of cheque in the name of the principal. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar
Agrawal & Anr.), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562
(BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.) 3075
#20: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 9 - Limitation Act, 1963,
Section 12 (2) - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - In computing the period of limitation in any suit etc. the day from
which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded and similar provision has been made in Section 12 (2) for appeal
etc. - Same principle is also incorporated in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - Rules of limitation Act and
General clauses Act apply under Negotiable Instrument Act. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 :
2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR
CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802
#21: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Notice dated 9.7.1990 sent
on 11.7.1990 - Even if it is taken that it was served on 12.7.1990 then date 12.7.1990 is to be excluded and the accused
was required to make the payment upto 27.7.1990 - Cause of action accrues on 28.7.1990 - Date 28.7.1990 is to be
excluded for counting period of one month - Complaint filed on 27.8.1990 is well within time. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal
Steels), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ
2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 :
2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802
#22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Not signed by complainant
but signed by counsel - There is no requirement of law that complaint must be signed and presented by the complainant
himself - Pleader in whose favour Vakalatnama is executed is duly competent to appear for the complainant in the case
and to conduct, prosecute or defend the same. (Rakesh Raja Vs Naru Mohammed Sheikh), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 345 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 705 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI
LR 77 : AIR 2007 NOC 286 (RAJ.)
#23: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Complaint - Cognizance taken - Plea of accused that he did not
receive notice - Court rejected recall petition - On request of complainant Court returned the cheque as complainant
pleaded that on verification he ascertained that the accused did not receive the notice personally - Cheque again
presented and again dishonoured - Second complaint filed on failure to make payment inspite of notice - Presumption of
service of first notice sent by registered post is available to the complainant and not to the opposite party and moreover
accused himself has stated that he did not receive the notice which was conceded to by the complainant - Held, since no
cause of action arose in favour of the complainant on the first dishonour of cheque as such subsequent complaint is
maintainable. (A.Gangadhar Vs K.Prasad), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (ORISSA)
#24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Cheque can be presented any number of times within its
validity but it will not give fresh cause of action every time - Cause of action accrues only when notice is given and
drawer fails to make the payment - Cause of action arises only once. (M/s.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh
& Anr.), 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.C.) : 2005(2) APEX
COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.C.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.)
1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389
#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Magistrate is obliged
and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a
solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh
Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3)
AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Limitation - Notice given on 26.3.1998 - Cause of action arose on
11.4.1998 - Complaint filed on 8.5.1998 - Not barred by limitation. (G.Venkataramanaiah Vs Sillakollu Venkateswarlu &
Anr.), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 674 (A.P.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0156 : 1999 (2) RCR
(CRL.) 0211 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0013 : 1999 CRI LJ 1219
#2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Company - Directors - Where allegations made against directors prima
facie constitute offence, complaint is maintainable - It is for a particular director to show that he was not incharge of
affairs of company when offence alleged was committed. (Hotline Shares and Securities Ltd., & Ors. Vs Dinesh
Ganeshmal Shah), 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504
#3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Police report - Cognizance can only be taken upon a complaint Magistrate cannot take cognizance on police report. (Nemichand Swaroopchand Shaha Vs M/s T.H.Raibhagi Firm),
2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 286 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0536
#4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Fine equivalent to amount of cheque
imposed - Order set aside - Magistrate not competent to impose fine exceeding Rs.5000/- - Magistrate can however
award compensation to any extent when sentence of fine is not imposed. (M/s A.M.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.),
2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A.P.)
#5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Power of attorney holder - Duly constituted power of attorney can file
complaint - There is no specific bar under the provisions of S.142 of the Act for filing a complaint by the special power
of attorney. (Rajeev Indani Vs D.Veerendra Haggade), 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2)
ISJ (BANKING) 0075
#6: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction and cause of action - Distinction - Cause of action is
something quite different from jurisdiction - Cause of action must restrict itself to time whereas jurisdiction is a situs.
(M/s Prem Cashew Industries Vs Zen Pareo), 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (DELHI) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING)
138 will be forfeited - Again after fresh presentation of cheque and dishonour and notice thereon prosecution is not
permissible. (Sadanandan Bhadran Vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1998(2)
APEX COURT JOURNAL 267 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0161 :
1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES
0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998(2) CTC 462 : 1998 (2) KLT 0765 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR
1988 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1998(6) SCC 514 : 1998 SCC(CRI.) 1471
: 1998(2) JCC 91
#17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay - Condonation - Complaint to be filed within period of limitation
prescribed u/s 142 - Complaint cannot be lodged thereafter - Court cannot condone delay as the very jurisdiction of
Court to take cognizance is barred - Provisions of Ss.138 and 142 are special provisions and exclude the operation of
Sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act. (C.Kalegouda Vs K.Sadashivappa), 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 222
(KARNATAKA) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0703 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0577 : 1998 (3)
RCR (CRL.) 0574 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0429 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES
0423 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0293 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3539 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0086
#18: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Complaint - When filed on the last day of limitation by a pleader in the
absence of the complainant - Magistrate can accept the complaint. (Rajan George Vs State of Kerala), 1998(3) CIVIL
COURT CASES 374 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0181 : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA)
0016 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0444 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0313 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0519 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.)
0064
#19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Limitation - Delay - Cannot be condoned under any provision of law Period prescribed under the Act is not the period as such, but is a condition precedent as such and that period cannot be
extended by any means. (Mandhadi Ramachandra Reddy Vs Gopume Reddy Ram Reddy), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 113 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0172 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0075 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0398 : 1998 (1)
BANKING CASES 0168 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0571 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0151 : 1997 CRL. L.J. 4275 : 1997 (2)
ALT (CRL.) 0347 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0018 (SN)
#20: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction - Court within whose jurisdiction
the cheque was presented for encashment, has also got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint. (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani),
1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3)
RCR (CRL.) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263
#21: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Arises only on failure of the
drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days is not
maintainable. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING)
0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553
#22: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Adjournment of complaint to some other date to examine the
complainant under S.200 Cr.P.C. - Does not constitute taking cognizance of the offence. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran),
1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1998 (3)
CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3553
#23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - - Cheque issued by H and dishonoured - Complaint against H and his
wife as the loan was for purchase of car in the name of wife - Complaint against wife quashed - Provision contemplates
punishment only against the drawer of the cheque but not others. (G.Surya Prabhavathi Vs Nekkanti Subrahmanyeswara
Rao), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 617 (A.P.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0438 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0788 : 1998 (91)
COMP. CASES 0223 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0543
#24: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is dishonoured has got
jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Ponnappan Vs Sibi), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ
(BANKING) 0010 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0077 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0238 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 2402
#25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Computing period of limitation - Day on which
cause of action arises is to be excluded - In the instant case notice served on accused on 29.9.1995 and complaint filed on
15.11.1995 - Held, complaint filed is within time as 15 days notice period expired on 14th October and cause of action
for filing complaint would arise from 15th October as such 15th October is to be excluded for counting the period of one
month. (M/s Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s India Securities Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.C.) : 1999(1)
APEX COURT JOURNAL 506 (S.C.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.)
0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3)
CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998 (2) KLT 0490 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1998 SC
3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1999 SCC (CRI) 329 : 1999(3) SCC 1
BCLR 0409 : 1995 (82) COMP. CASES 0452 : 1996 BJ 0045 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0147 : 1994 (3)
CRIMES 1086 : 1994 (56) DLT 0066
#22: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Can neither be extended u/s 473
Cr.P.C. nor the delay condoned u/s 5 of the Limitation Act - A complaint filed beyond one month of the date on which the
cause of action has arisen is barred and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the
complaint. (Cr.P.C., 1973, S.437, Limitation Act, 1963, S.5). (Kunhimuhammed Vs Khadeeja), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 321 (KERALA) : 1995(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0125 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0716 : 1996
(1) BANKING CASES 0019 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0145 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0610 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0019 : 1995
(2) ALT (CRL.) 0420 : 1995 AIHC 2962 : 1995(1) KLT 350
#23: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured for the second time - Complaint filed on that basis
- Complaint is maintainable - It is open to the payee or holder in due course to present the cheque for payment even after
his failure to file a complaint on the basis of the first cause of action accrued to him. (Lakshmanan Vs Sivarama
Krishnan), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (KERALA) : 1995(1) KLT 259 : 1995 CRL. LJ 1384 (KER.)
#24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Fine in excess of Rs.5, 000/- can be imposed by Judicial Magistrate
First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate if situation so warrants even if the power of court to impose fine is limited only
upto Rs.5, 000/- by S.29 Cr.P.C. (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.), 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
480 (A.P.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) (D.B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 0638 :
1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393
#25: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque issued by the attorney - Principal is liable as the principal is
always bound by the act of his or her attorney so long the attorney does not exceed his right - In the instant case no
material is on record to hold that attorney acted beyond his power - Held, complaint cannot be quashed. (Sova
Mukherjee Vs Rajiv Mehra), 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (CALCUTTA) : 1996(3) ALL INDIA CRI LR 558 :
1997(2) CCR 313 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 480 : 1998(2) REC CIR R 474
#1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Private complaint be made - Court can take
cognizance of offence if allegations In complaint show that complainant has complied with provisions of Ss.138 and 142
- Correctness of defence plea in reply notice to be considered only at the trial and not at the time of taking cognizance of
offence-Defence theory available in documents filed need not be mentioned in complaint. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons &
Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P)
#2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Essential requirements of clause (b) & (c) of the proviso to S.138 not
fulfilled - Complaint and the summoning order quashed. (Smt.Pushpa Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Sharma), 1994(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 384 (P&H) : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0258
#3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissed for default - Case taken up in absence
of parties or their counsel as it was declared holiday - Notice not issued to the parties - Cannot be said that complainant
failed to appear - Proper for trial court to have adjourned the case for giving notice - Order set aside - Case restored.
(Umesh Kumar Vs M/s.Moudgil Carpets & Rugs & Ors.), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (P&H) : 1993 (3) RCR
(CRL.) 0357 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0683 : 1993 (3) SLJ 2827
#4: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Post dated cheque - Six months period shall be calculated from the date
which the cheque bears. (S.Kiran Vs L.C.Corporation), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL
INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561
#5: DELHI HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the
cheque fails to make payment and that can be the place where the Bank to which the cheque was issued is located - It can
also be the place where the cheque was issued or delivered - The Court within whose jurisdiction any of the above said
places falls has got jurisdiction to try the offence. (Maheshwari Proteins Ltd. Vs State-Delhi Administration), 1994(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (DELHI) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0142 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.)
0235 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0080 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0019 : 1994 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0381 : 1990
DRJ 0029
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - A power of attorney holder of a payee or a holder in due course can
make a complaint u/s 142 of the Act. (Hamsa Vs Ibrahim), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ
(BANKING) 0722 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0314 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0159 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0800 :
1994(1) CRIMES 0395 : ILR 1994 (1) KERALA 0622
#7: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint should contain allegations of the
ingredients of the offence. (Cr.P.C., 1973, S.482) (Mohammed Rasheed Vs State of Kerala), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT
CASES 256 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0125 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0329 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0030
: 1997 (89) COMP. CASES 0045 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0674 : 1993 (2) KLT 1027 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0763
#8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Neither Ingredients of the offence spelled out nor
disclosed as to how the court at place `M' has jurisdiction - Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Mohinder Singh
Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 : 1994 (1)
ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0572 : 1994 (1)
BANKING CASES 0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0549 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509
#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn on bank at place `M' and cheque presented
for collection at place `M' - Complaint filed at place `T' where transaction creating liability had taken place - No
illegality - Court at place `T' has jurisdiction. (Rahmathullah Vs Ramalingam), 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 278
(MADRAS) : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0467
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action - Arises only on the expiry of 15
days notice period - Complaint filed before this period is not maintainable. (Madhavan Vs Addl.Judicial First Class
Magistrate), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1993 (2)
BANKING CASES 0135 : 1993 (82) COMP. CASES 0753 : 1993 (1) KLT 0717
#11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonour - Police cannot entertain a complaint under
Sections 3 & 5 Cr.P.C. - Holder of cheque has to file a complaint before Magistrate. (H.Mohan & Anr. Vs State of
Karnataka), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA
CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0237 : 1991 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0343 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0036 : 1992 (1)
BANKING CASES 0221 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0215 : 1992 (73) COMP. CASES 0560 : 1992 BJ 0520 : 1991 (2) CRIMES
0093 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 1866 : ILR 1991 (KAR) 0612
#12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filed-Quashing of-such complaints
are cognizable by Courts of competent jurisdiction - Application u/s482 can be entertained by the High Court only if
prima facie case is not made out on the allegations in complaint - Non mention of defence theory in complaint not a
ground for entertaining such application-It is not for High Court to go into rival contentions - Inherent power cannot be
invoked to quash proceedings on complaint requiring enquiry and trial. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas
& Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P)
#13: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay in filing complaint - Delay can be condoned. (Janardhan
Mohapatra Vs Saroj Kumar Choudhry), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 :
1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1751 : 1993(6)
OCR 242
#14: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Firm which issued the cheques not made an accused in the complaint Can be impleaded even after the expiry of the period of one month from the date of cause of action envisaged in S.138 of
the act. (Playwood House Vs Wood Craft Products Ltd.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ
(BANKING) 0650 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0311 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0182 : 1997 (88)
COMP. CASES 0565 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0434 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0543 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0604 : 1993 MWN 0140
#15: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured - Jurisdiction - Primarily to be determined by the
averments contained in the complaint - Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make
the payment of money, i.e. the place where the bank is located or the place where the cheque was issued or delivered Court within whose jurisdiction any of such place falls has jurisdiction to try the offence. (Muraleedharan Vs Pareed),
1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1992(1) KLT 59
#16: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque -Complaint filed within limitation - Complaint
returned for some omission and Court did not specify time for compliance of that omission - Complaint if represented
after limitation cannot be held to be barred. (D.Ramamoorthy Vs K.J.Duraisamy), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 91
(MADRAS) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0863 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1995 (1)
BCLR 0654 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0538 : 1996 BJ 0240 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0457 : 1995 (4) CCR 0119
#17: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Magistrate of the first class is empowered
to impose a fine exceeding Rs.5, 000/-for offence u/s.138 of the Act. (Sahadevan Vs Sreedharan), 1996(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 196 (KERALA)
#18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Complaint complying with all the ingredients
of Ss. 138 & 142 - Held, there is absolutely no justification for the High Court to exercise powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. (Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad & Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 680 (A.P.) : 1992
ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0146 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0201 : 1993
(76) COMP. CASES 0339 : 1991 (3) CRIMES 0832 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 0597 : 1991 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0457
#19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheques - `Payment stopped by drawer' - No offence is
made out - Court can take cognizance only when cheque is dishonoured either due to inadequacy of funds or due to the
amount exceeding the limit. (M/S.Embee Textiles Limited & Anr. Vs Sadhu Ram & Co.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT
CASES 106 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0727 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0349 : 1993 (1) BANKING
CASES 0068 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0394
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint by one of its
Directors - Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors - Held, on such a complaint no
process can be issued much less a conviction imposed. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Ltd. &
Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY)
#1: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - No complaint filed Cheque again presented on request of accused - Cheque again dishonoured - Drawee competent to prosecute under S.138
on second dishonour. (Premlata Chaddha Vs Surendra Kumar Soni), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (M.P.) : 1999 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0218 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (M.P.) 0486 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0104 :
1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0725 : 1998 CRL. L.J. 3657 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0054
#2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Limitation - Filing of
complaint after period of limitation - It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period, if
complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. (Ranjitha
Balasubramanian & Anr. Vs Shanthi Group, Bangalore & Ors.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) :
2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2)
AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2)
KANTLJ 491
#3: PATNA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay in filing complaint Cognizance wrongly taken - Accused discharged. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 083 (PATNA)
#4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of
attorney holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint
remitted back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s
200 Cr.P.C. - Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to
consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3)
CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD)
#5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay - Condonation 13 days delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be
condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having
regard to the difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 130 (KARNATAKA)
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Issuance of process Provision of S.200 Cr.P.C. applies. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.),
2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) :
2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI)
1339
#2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Magistrate is obliged
and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a
solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. Vs Udaysingh
Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.), 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT
CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.L.J.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3)
AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, 53-- - Legal representative of the payee or holder in due course
can file a complaint u/s 138 read with S.142 of the Act if other conditions in the sections are satisfied. (Chandra Babu Vs
Remani), 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 641 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 12 (KERALA)
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 145-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Criminal Court cannot
compel complainant to file proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. (Subramanian Vs Krishnakumar), 2008(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA)
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque amount paid and complainant
received the same - It shall be taken that parties have compounded the offence - With the amendment introduced in S.147
of the Act, every offence punishable under the Act is compoundable. (M.A.Mohana Pai Vs V.A.Jabbar & Anr.), 2005(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA)
#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Compounding of offence - Dishonour of cheque - Accused
convicted - Accused making payment of cheque - Acquittal cannot be recoded on this ground - Accused can be acquitted
if parties arrive at settlement - In the instant case in view of peculiar facts of the case, Court itself recording settlement
and acquitted the accused. (Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s A.P.Heavy Machinery & Engg.Ltd.), 2006(1)
CIVIL COURT CASES 188 (A.P.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 25 (A.P.)
#3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Revision against Compounding of offence - Compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act can be done during trial of case as well as
by the High Court or Court or Session while acting in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Cr.P.C.
(Ramesh Chander Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 439 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 351 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 214 (P&H) : 2007(1) RECCIVR 217
#4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise during pendency of appeal
- Written compromise also filed - Conviction set aside - Accused acquitted. (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of
Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN)
#5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Direction to pay double the
amount of cheque as compensation - Appellate Court maintained conviction but amount of compensation reduced During pendency of revision in High Court parties compromised and payment made towards full and final settlement of
dues - Held, offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable and there is no reason to refuse compromise between parties Order of conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted of the charge against him. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs
Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268
(S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6)
RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1)
AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245
#6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is
compoundable. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052
(S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1)
RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 :
2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1)
SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245
#7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence by Advocate When authority is granted by a litigant in favour of Advocate which empowers the latter to enter into a settlement, any
settlement arrived at, on behalf of a party to a lis is binding on the parties. (R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2)
APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT
CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258
#8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Table
appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted as provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of IPC and none other.
(R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES
168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258
#9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Parties compromised
during pendency of revision - Amount of cheque and damages paid - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Gurmeet Singh
Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 075 (P&H)
#10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Parties
compounding offence during revision - Allowed - Conviction set aside. (Surindera Rani Vs Smt.Kiran Bala & Anr.),
2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 208 (P&H)
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Compounding of offence after verdict of conviction and
sentence becomes final - In such a case High Court can exercise its power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. as also under Article 226 and
227 of Constitution - In such a case power u/s 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked after disposal of revision notwithstanding the
bar u/s 362 Cr.P.C. (Sabu George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2)
CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA)
#12: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Offence u/s 138 is compoundable without permission of Court.
(Sabu George & etc. Vs Home Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 040 (KERALA)
#13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise in revision - Offence under
Act is compoundable - Complainant permitted to compound offence - Accused acquitted. (Santosh Kumari Vs State of
Rajasthan & Anr.), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 814 (RAJASTHAN)
#14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise after conviction - Table
appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted to offences under Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction and sentence set
aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H)
#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compromise after conviction - Order of
conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H)
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 151-- - Registered society - Dishonour of cheque - Offence committed
by a registered society - Every person who at the time when the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was
responsible to the society for the conduct of the business of the society as well as the society shall be deemed to be guilty
of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing
Federation Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979
(KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289
#1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Undated cheque - When a drawer deliver
a signed cheque, he gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his choice. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh
& Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY)
#2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - It is open to a person to
sign and deliver a blank or incomplete cheque and is equally open for the holder of cheque to fill up blanks and specify
the amount therein. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) :
2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY)
#3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused moved an application for
sending the cheque to handwriting expert - Held, that S.20 of the Act confers only a prima facie right, that too
conditional upon the holder of a negotiable instrument - Adducing evidence in support of defence is a valuable right Allowed. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010
#1: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 25-- - Cheque period expiring on a public holiday - Cheque shall be
deemed to be due on the next preceding business day. (K.S.Subbaraman Vs Iyyammal), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES
499 (MADRAS) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0736 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0594 : 1998 (2)
BANKING CASES 0589
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 27-- - Notice issued and complaint filed by Advocate on instructions
given by Power of attorney holder of payee and not by payee himself - Not illegal. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Alexander &
Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0480 :
2000(2) KLT 0059
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 27-- - Power of attorney holder - Can file a complaint. (Pandalai Vs
Jacob C.Alexander & Anr.), 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2)
RCR (CRL.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 30-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - When dishonour of
cheque takes place, certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.),
2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007
NOC 2020 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923
#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 42-- - Re-presentation of cheque after lodging complaint - Held, it is
open to drawee to present dishonoured cheque again and again to bank during validity period of cheque, even after
lodging complaint. (M/s Savitha Enterprises Vs K.Ravindranath Shetty), 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 715
(KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0299 : 1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0163 : 1997
(4) CRIMES 0135
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 43-- - Dishonour of cheque - Lending of money - Cheque issued
before amount given by complainant - Cheque is one issued in discharge of the debt or liability coming u/s 138 of the
Act - However, in case cheque is issued in anticipation of lending money but money is not given to the borrower then
consideration fails and S.43 of the Act comes into play. (George Vs Kamarudeen), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 112
(KERALA)
#1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 50-- - 'A holder in due course' - Means a person who for consideration
became the possessor of a cheque if payable to bearer before the amount became payable - Unless contrary is proved the
holder of a negotiable instrument shall be presumed to be a holder in due course. (Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs Vinkar
Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors.), 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 241 (S.C.)
: 2001(4) MAH LJ 895 : AIR 2001 SC 3641 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 245 : S.C. ON DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES 70
ALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 72-- - Cheque presented within six months but reached Drawee's bank
after six months - Cheque dishonoured on account of insufficient funds - Held, offence u/s 138 is made out. (Jogy David
Vs Babu), 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 688 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0178 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0753 :
1998 (94) COMP. CASES 0711 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0375 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0319 : 1998 (1) KLT 0038
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 87-- - Subsequent insertion of amount and name of payee without
consent of drawer amounts to material alteration rendering the instrument void as in the absence of certainty regarding
the amount and the payee at the time of issue of cheque the cheque cannot be said to be a valid one - However,
subsequent putting of date in an undated cheque would not always amount to material alteration. (Capital Syndicate Vs
Jameela), 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (KERALA)
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 87-- - Cheque - Correction in amount of cheque without consent of
maker of cheque - It is material alteration which amounts to cancellation of the instrument - Criminal prosecution cannot
be launched on it. (Ramachandran Vs Dinesan), 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 197 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 353 : 2005 CRI LJ 1237 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 666 : 2005(27) ALL
IND CAS 667 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI.) 177 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 289 : 2005 BANK J 571 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 371 :
2005(2) CUR CRI R 457 : 2005(2) ICC 441 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER. 390 : 2005(1) KLJ 296
#1: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 9-- - A bearer cheque can be presented for encashment without any
endorsement by the party - Presentation of the cash cheque not by the complainant but by another person - It is of no
consequence. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Kondody), 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA)
#2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 9-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course - Purchaser of cheque
is holder in due course if there is an endorsement in favour of the purchaser. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs
Punjab National Bank), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021
(P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 ; 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC
#1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6, R.17 --- Written statement - Amendment - At appellate stage - Suit for specific
performance on basis of oral agreement - Cheque issued by vendee for Rs.5 lacs - Amendment in written statement
sought that cheque was issued as security for loan taken by vendee from vendor - Amendment does not change nature of
suit - Amendment allowed. (Chandra Prakash Vs The Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Jhalawar & Anr.), 2007(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 421 (RAJASTHAN) (DB)
#2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.37, R.3 --- Leave to defend - Loan given through a loan agreement and a promissory
note - Loan amount given by way of cheque - Petitioner to furnish security instead of bank guarantee. (Avtar Singh Vs
Singh Finance), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300 (P&H)
#3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 --- Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint - Accused took plea
that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security - It is not a ground for quashing complaint - Such
matter has to be looked into at stage of trial. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD)
#4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Business dealing - Cheque alleged to be
towards outstanding dues - Account books not produced by complainant - Contention of accused that cheque was issued
as security believed - Conviction set aside. (M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(2) APEX
COURT JUDGMENTS 411 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES
665 (S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT HCR
84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 :
2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC
730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR
CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ
(CRI.) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD LW (CRI.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 :
2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 :
2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39
#5: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Plea of accused that blank cheque as security
was given and even after repayment of loan cheque was misused - Accused admitted in his cross examination that
cheque was given to repay the debt - No merit in contention that blank cheque was given - No ground to interference in
concurrent finding of conviction. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Laxmi Tiwari), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510
(RAJASTHAN)
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of
loan - Cheque continues to be one issued for the discharge of liability as contemplated u/s 138 of the Act.
(K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA)
#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards repayment of loan Money lender - Not possible to lend money without any document - Date of lending money not mentioned in complaint
and notice - Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced Presumption u/s 139 is not available - Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan
given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present proceedings instituted by him to
realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable - Accused acquitted. (M.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy),
2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) :
AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR.) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4)
RECCIVR 286
#8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Issued as security - Even if cheque is issued
as a security for payment, it is negotiable instrument and encashable security at the hands of payee - Not a ground to
exonerate the penal liability u/s 138 of N.I. Act. (Umaswamy Vs K.N.Ramanath), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 096
(KARNATAKA)
#9: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint - Accused took plea
that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security - It is not a ground for quashing complaint - Such
matter has to be looked into at stage of trial. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL
COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD)
#10: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of
loan - Cheque will continue to be one issued for discharge of liability as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act.
(Rathikumar Vs Santhamma), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 024 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 210 (KER.) : 2007
CRILJ 2643 : 2007(3) AKAR 423 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 865 : 2006(4) KERLT 308
#11: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Cheque issued as security for
transaction between the parties - When blank cheque is issued by one to another, it gives an authority to the person, to
whom it is issued, to fill it up at the appropriate stage with the necessary entries regarding the liability and to present it to
Bank - On dishonour of cheque accused is not absolved of the liability. (Moideen Vs Johny), 2006(4) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 1031 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 220 (KERALA) : 2006 CRI LJ 542 (NOC)
#12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by way of security - Plea that
dishonour of such cheque does not attract criminal liability - There was interpolation in amount written in numbers - Fact
of interpolation corroborated by expert evidence - Conviction without considering legal plea and without giving
satisfactory reasons for disbelieving fact of interpolation - Set aside - Matter remanded for decision afresh. (Sudhir
Kumar Bhalla Vs Jagdish Chand & etc. etc.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 496 (S.C.)
#13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued as security for repayment of
debt - It is a negotiable instrument - Dishonour of cheque - Drawer of cheque incurs liability of prosecution under
Section 138 of the Act. (S.T.P. Limited, Bangalore Vs Usha Paints & Decorators, Bangalore & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL
COURT CASES 335 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 614 (KARNATAKA)
#14: GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- `Any debt or other liability' - Complainant giving a debt of Rs.15
lacs to accused - Accused issued seven post dated cheques in discharge of debt - Dishonour of cheques - No criminal
offence under S.138 is made out - Cheques were issued as collateral security by accused and not to discharge any
existing debt - Case is of civil nature. (Shanku Concretes Pvt.Ltd. & Ors. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.), 2000(3) CIVIL
(K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA)
#25: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139 --- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Theory of handing
over a blank signed cheque as security - Burden rests squarely and heavily on the indictee who wants to attribute to
himself such an improbable and artificial conduct to claim exculpation from lability - The silence and inaction of accused
on receipt of demand notice and his omission to raise the contentions now raised are vital and crucial significance when a
court tries to evaluate the acceptability of the contention adopting the yardstick of a prudent man. (Aniyan Thomas
Chacko Vs The Varvelil Bankers & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 262 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL
COURT CASES 236 (KERALA)
#1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.37 --- Leave to defend - Suit for recovery on the basis of cheque - Defence that the
amount was not actually due as claimed and could have been settled by settling the accounts and that the cheque was
forged by the plaintiff for which defendant has lodged an FIR - Even if defence is illusory, yet the leave to defend can be
granted on such conditions so as to protect the interest of the plaintiff - Leave granted subject to deposit of 50% of the
amount in the Court and furnishing security for the remaining amount to the satisfaction of the Court. (M/s I.J.Transport
Company Vs M/s Ganga Auto Agency), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 218 (P&H)
#2: KERALA HIGH COURT
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 --- The question as to whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a
debt or legally enforceable liability or only as a collateral security is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate at the
stage of evidence - When the allegations made in the complaint make out a prima facie case, the criminal proceedings
cannot be quashed. (Triton Marinex Vs State of Kerala), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ
(BANKING) 0423 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0181 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0112
#3: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- The question as to whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a
debt or legally enforceable liability or only as a collateral security is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate at the
stage of evidence - When the allegations made in the complaint make out a prima facie case, the criminal proceedings
cannot be quashed. (Triton Marinex Vs State of Kerala), 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ
(BANKING) 0423 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0181 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0112
#4: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- An undated cheque handed over as security for the purpose of the
contract - Dishonour of cheque - Provisions of S.138 does not apply - There was no debt or liability when cheque was
handed over to the drawee. (M/s Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. Vs Mac Industries Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT
CASES 109 (MADRAS) : 1999(1) REC CRI R 683 : 1999(1) BANKING CASES 0298 : 2000(1) BOM CLR 564 :
1999(2) CCR 0424 : 1999 (1) CTC 0006
#5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Cheque issued as a security to make payment of the liability of
another company - Even if the cheque is issued as security or in discharge of liability of any other person, it amounts to a
liability which has been undertaken by the drawer of the cheque. (M/s Mahaplasto Ltd. Vs M/s Bushan Steels and Strips
Ltd.), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 580 (P&H) : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0557
#6: KERALA HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- When a cheque is issued as a security, no complaint lies under S.138
of the Act. (Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING)
0229 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0323
#7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 --- Security - Undated cheque issued as security - Subsequently there
was hire purchase agreement between accused and complainant - Accused issued 36 fresh cheques - Default in payment
of instalments - Complainant entered the date on the undated cheque given to him earlier and presented the same to claim
the amount - Held, cheque worked out when fresh cheques were issued and that cheque cannot be made use of for
enforcement of subsequent hire purchase agreement. (M/s Adithya Alkaloids Ltd. Vs M/s NCC Finance Limited), 2000(3)
CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (A.P.) : 1999 - 2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 : 2001 CRI LJ 1585
#8: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139 --- Legal debt and liability - Agreement to sell - Accused making
part payment and issuing cheques of balance consideration - Accused put in possession of land and given Power of
Attorney to do all acts and deeds in respect of land - Sale transaction not completed - Dishonour of cheque for want of
sufficient funds - Accused guilty of offence under S.138 - Act of complainant amounted to sale of property within
meaning of S.54 of Transfer of Property act - It would be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of liability and
not as security. (V.Sampath Vs Praveen Chandra V.Shah), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (MADRAS)
#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139 --- Loan taken of Rs.30 lakhs and promissory note executed Amount not paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding - On repeated demands accused issued a
cheque towards discharge of loan amount - Cheque dishonoured - Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque
was given only as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque, there was no existing liability - It is for accused
to rebut presumption contained in S.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited
Vs M.Mal Reddy), 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (MADRAS)