2026 SCC Vol. 6 Part 1: Key Supreme Court Cases on Constitution, Income Tax, Negotiable Instruments, & more
Explore the latest Supreme Court Cases in 2026 SCC Vol. 6 Part 1 on reservations, double taxation, negotiable instruments, and more.
Negotiable Instruments
2026 SCC Vol. 1 Part 5: Key Supreme Court Cases on Constitution, Customs, Electricity & Negotiable Instruments
Explore the latest Supreme Court cases in 2026 SCC Vol. 1 Part 5 covering Article 19 free speech, stray dogs regulation, Customs electronic evidence, Power Purchase Agreements and cheque dishonour litigation.
Supreme Court clears the air on which Court has the jurisdiction to try complaint under S. 138 NI Act in respect of account payee cheque
“For deciding jurisdiction, it is not sufficient to establish whether a person maintains an account in a particular bank. It is necessary to also ascertain the specific branch of the bank in which he maintains the account to completely and unambiguously decide the said question”.
Section 138 of NI Act Explained: Cheque Bounce Notice, Procedure & Landmark Rulings
This article aims to explain the legal framework governing cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the NI Act, with particular focus on the significance, format, and essentials of a cheque bounce notice. It also highlights key judicial developments shaping the interpretation of these provisions.
Complaint for dishonour of cheque to be filed within one month from the date on which cause of action arose: Allahabad HC upholds summoning order
Allahabad High Court said that the petitioner had 15 days’ period to make the payment from the date of receipt of notice, on 08-01-2020, and the said period expired on 23-01-2020. Therefore, the cause of action for filing the complaint arose on 23-01-2020, as per clause (c) of the proviso of Section 138.
Allahabad HC directs Magistrate to conclude NI Act proceedings expeditiously without going into unnecessary technicality
Allahabad High Court noted that the Supreme Court has issued several directions to deal with the pendency of dishonor of cheque cases and for their expeditious disposal
Dishonour of Cheque: Delhi High Court sets aside summon order due to lack of specific allegations against directors in the complaint
The Delhi High Court observed that the wanton arraignment of directors without reference to their role in relation to a transaction, or to the issuance or dishonour of a cheque by the company, requires to be deprecated and discouraged, since it amounts to abuse of the salutary process of criminal law.
Explained| Supreme Court’s power under Section 406 CrPC to transfer Section 138 NI Act cases and effect of non-obstante clause under Section 142(1) NI Act
Supreme Court said that as four of the six cases have been filed by the respondent company before the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi and only two such cases are pending before the Courts at Nagpur, it would be convenient and in the interest of all concerned, that the cases be transferred to the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi.
Right to cross-examination cannot be denied as a punishment for failure to deposit interim compensation under Section 143A NI Act: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: In a case where an offender under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) was denied the
Dishonour of cheque| Partner cannot be held to be vicariously liable when partnership firm is not tried as primary offender: SC
Supreme Court: Explaining the law on vicarious liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the bench of Ajay Rastogi and Sanjiv Khanna*,
A 138 NI complaint filed was barred by limitation but such issue was raised for the first time before the Appellate Court and not Trial Court; Read to know what Kar HC observed
Karnataka High Court: HP Sandesh J. dismissed the petition and upheld the judgment by the Appellate Court and further directed the complainant
Ori HC considers whether any difference exists between a case where default is committed and prosecution immediately launched and where prosecution is deferred till cheque presented again gets dishonored for second or successive time?
Orissa High Court: R K Pattnaik, J. dismissed the petition and held that the ground on which the petition is raised is
Section 138 NI Act| Can’t defeat the complaint merely because it does not elaborate upon Managing Director’s authorisation: SC
Supreme Court: In a case relating to dishonour of cheques where it was alleged that the complaint was filed by the managing
Section 138 of NI Act| No hard and fast rule that a cheque issued as security can never be presented by drawee: Supreme Court
“A cheque issued as security pursuant to a financial transaction cannot be considered as a worthless piece of paper under every circumstance.”
Explained| Sections 138 and 141 of NI Act: Vicarious liability of directors of a company for dishonour of cheques
Supreme Court: Explaining the law relating to vicarious liability of the Directors of a company under Sections 138 and 141 of the
Section 138 NI Act| Once settlement has been entered into, the complainant cannot pursue the original complaint: Supreme Court
The settlement agreement subsumes the original complaint.
Delhi Court | For application of S. 138 of NI Act, there should not be any uncertainty/ ambiguity in cheque as regards to amount written in words
Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
Define categories under Section 138 NI Act where proceedings can be conducted ‘online’; SC tells HCs
Supreme Court: In the case where the question as to how proceedings for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments