Date of the Judgment: 21 April 2025 Judges: Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court addressed a dispute arising from a cheque bounce case. The central issue revolved around the enforcement of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concerning dishonored cheques. Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, presiding over […]
Introduction Date of the Judgment: 16 April 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 493 Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. Can a person be prosecuted for cheating, when a court has already determined the facts in a prior criminal proceeding? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in S.C. Garg vs. State of
Date of the Judgment: April 02, 2025 Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Can a High Court overturn concurrent findings of lower courts in a cheque dishonor case? The Supreme Court addressed this question in Ashok Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., concerning the validity of a conviction under Section 138 of
Supreme Court Revisits Section 138 NI Act: Ashok Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025) Read Post »
Date of the Judgment: April 01, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 445 Judges: J.B. Pardiwala, J., R. Mahadevan, J. Can a personal guarantor facing cheque dishonor charges under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) avoid prosecution by claiming protection under the interim moratorium granted by Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Date of the Judgment: March 4, 2025 Citation: 2025 INSC 315 Judges: B. V. Nagarathna, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J. Can a non-executive director of a company be held liable for cheque dishonor under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question in the case of K.S. Mehta
Date of the Judgment: January 2, 2025 Citation: (2025) INSC 1 Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., K. V. Viswanathan, J. Can a company’s manager, authorized by a power of attorney, file a cheque dishonor complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question. The court clarified
Supreme Court clarifies “Drawer” under Section 138 NI Act in cheque dishonor case: Bijoy Kumar Moni vs Paresh Manna (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an authorized signatory of a company can be considered the “drawer” of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the cheque is drawn on the company’s account.
Supreme Court Clarifies ‘Drawer’ Definition in NI Act Appeals: Bijay Agarwal vs. M/s Medilines (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether an authorized signatory of a company can be considered a ‘drawer’ of a cheque under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. CASE TYPE: Criminal Appeal (Cheque Dishonour) Case Name: Bijay Agarwal vs. M/s Medilines Judgment
Supreme Court dismisses arbitration petition due to limitation: Elfit Arabia vs. Concept Hotel BARONS (2024) INSC 536 (09 July 2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a court can reject an arbitration petition at the referral stage if the claim is ex-facie barred by limitation. CASE TYPE: Arbitration Law Case Name: Elfit Arabia & Anr vs. Concept Hotel
Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case: Rajco Steel Enterprises vs. Kavita Saraff (2024) INSC 288 LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption of guilt in a cheque dishonor case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, when the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Despite Complainant’s Refusal to Compound: Raj Reddy Kallem vs. State of Haryana (2024) Date of the Judgment: April 08, 2024 Citation: 2024 INSC 347 Judges: A.S. Bopanna, J., Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Can a criminal case be quashed even if the complainant refuses to settle, especially when the accused has repaid
Supreme Court Clarifies Discretionary Power of Interim Compensation Under Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act: Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava vs. State of Jharkhand (2024) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the provision for interim compensation under Section 143A(1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is mandatory or discretionary. CASE TYPE: Criminal (Cheque Dishonour) Case Name: Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava vs.
