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 Liability Under Section 138 NI Act Post IBC Resolution Date of the Judgment: March 15, 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 218 Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. and Abhay S. Oka, J. (Majority Opinion by Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., Concurring Opinion by J.B. Pardiwala, J.) Can a director of a company be held liable
Supreme Court Transfers Cheque Dishonour Cases: Yogesh Upadhyay vs. Atlanta Limited (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Supreme Court can transfer cheque dishonor cases under Section 406 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the specific jurisdiction outlined in Section 142(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. CASE TYPE: Criminal, Negotiable Instruments Act Case Name:
Supreme Court Transfers Cheque Dishonour Cases for Consolidated Trial LEGAL ISSUE: Whether cases related to cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be transferred to a different court for a consolidated trial, despite the jurisdictional provisions of Section 142 of the same Act. CASE TYPE: Criminal, Negotiable Instruments Act Case
Supreme Court Clarifies Complaint Filing in Cheque Dishonor Cases: Bhupesh Rathod vs. Dayashankar Prasad Chaurasia (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by the Managing Director of a company, is valid if the company is not explicitly named as the complainant in the cause title. CASE
Supreme Court Upholds Complaint Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act: Birendra Prasad Sah vs. State of Bihar (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be maintained when a second legal notice was issued after the first notice was allegedly not served, and if the delay
