Section 138 NI Act Archives | Page 4 of 6

Del HC | Onus to prove that there is non-existence of debt is on whom under NI Act? Read the purpose of S. 118 NI Act

Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., addressed a matter wherein it was reiterated that the initial burden of proving the burden of

Case Briefs High Courts

P&H HC | After complaint is dismissed in default, Court becomes “functus officio” and Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall his order and restore complaint; HC decides

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Arun Kumar Tyagi, J., addressed a petition challenging the impugned order of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class of

Case Briefs High Courts

Guj HC | Whether a matter is required to be remanded in order to comply with the principles of natural justice where there has been intermingling of documents; Court explains

Gujarat High Court: R.P. Dholaria, J., allowed an appeal which was filed in order to decide whether a matter can be remanded

Case Briefs High Courts

P&H HC | Is there any provision of Negotiable Instruments Act that refers to any pre-condition for availing a valuable right of first appeal? HC elaborates

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Gurvinder Singh Gill, J., observed that, Right to appeal against conviction is an invaluable statutory right vested upon

High Court Round Up Legal RoundUp

2020 Wrap-Up — 22 Notable rulings by High Courts on Negotiable Instruments Act

And, that’s a wrap! Here’s the list of our coverage on Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 2020. [Allahabad High Court] All

Case Briefs High Courts

[NI Act]Kar HC | If the complainant produces evidence regarding the transaction as well as dishonour of cheque, is it still necessary to examine the banker to prove the endorsement issued by him? HC decides

Karnataka High Court: John Michael Cunha J., allowed the appeal and sets aside the impugned order. The case involves default under Section

Case Briefs High Courts

Bom HC | Does NI Act authorises a complainant to fill an incomplete cheque? Court discusses while reversing acquittal of accused under S. 138 NI Act

Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., reversed the acquittal of the respondent-accused holding him guilty of having committed an offence under Section 138

Case Briefs High Courts

Tri HC | What is the purpose of a serving a ‘Statutory Notice’ under Negotiable Instruments Act? Detailed analysis of significance of ‘Statutory Presumption’

Tripura High Court: S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., highlights the essence of the provisions of Negotiable Instruments Act, in light of the object of a

Case Briefs High Courts

Madras HC | Can a ‘Non-Executive Director’ who is not responsible for day-to-day affairs of company be made vicariously liable for offence committed by company? Court’s interpretation in light of S. 141 NI Act

Madras High Court: G.K. Ilathiraiyan, J., while addressing the instant matter, observed that, a person who is inducted as the Non-Executive Director of

Case Briefs High Courts

Madras HC | Are Advocates barred from doing money lending business with their clients? Read HC’s opinion in light of SC decision

Madras High Court: G.K. Ilathiraiyan, J., addressed a petition wherein it was reiterated that Advocates are barred from having any business transaction or

Case Briefs High Courts

[Negotiable Instruments Act] Ker HC | What determines commencement of period of presentation is date of cheque and not the date of delivery of cheque

Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of A. Hariprasad and T.V. Anilkumar, JJ., while addressing a review petition, reiterated that the relevant date

Case Briefs High Courts

All HC | Can a complaint filed in light of S. 138 NI Act be dismissed on ground of one day delay? Read Court’s reasoned order

Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., held that a complaint made in light of dishonor of cheque filed with a delay

Case Briefs High Courts

[Malafide Litigation] Madras HC | Proceedings under S. 420 IPC quashed for being counterblast to complaint instituted under S. 138 NI Act

Madras High Court: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., allowed a criminal original petition and quashed the proceedings in a criminal case filed against the

Case Briefs High Courts

All HC | Principle contained in S. 141 of NI Act is not applicable to a sole-proprietary concern, firm need not be arraigned as an accused while making a claim for recovery under S. 138 of the NI Act

Allahabad High Court: While deciding a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Suresh Kumar Gupta, J., dismissed the

Banking and Negotiable Instruments Case Briefs High Courts

Del HC | Can a director who has resigned from company be held liable for cheques subsequently issued and dishonoured? HC explains in light of S. 141 NI Act

Delhi High Court: V. Kameswar Rao, J., while addressing the present matter observed that a retired director of the company cannot be

OP. ED.SCC Journal Section Archives

Cheque Proceedings Against a Company During Insolvency Proceedings – A Legal Complication [SCC Archives]

by Akaant Kumar Mittal†

Case Briefs High Courts

All HC | Once the intention of the party is clear that he does not wish to make payment, should complainant wait for 15 days to file a complaint for dishonour of cheque? HC answers

Allahabad High Court: In the instant case where the summoning order issued as per the requisites of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument

Case Briefs High Courts

[S. 138 NI Act] P&H HC | Do sympathetic consideration have any role to play in the matter of sentencing? Court discusses

Punjab and Haryana High Court: Sudhir Mittal, J., while addressing an issue with regard to the dishonour of cheque held that, “Offence

Case Briefs High Courts

[Dishonour of Cheque] MP HC | Director/MD/JD/other officers and employees of a company can not be prosecuted under S. 138 of NI Act unless the company is impleaded as an accused

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, J., while addressing a matter with regard to dishonour of cheque held that, Director/Managing Director/Joint Director/other

Case Briefs High Courts

Kar HC | No legal basis for Family Courts insisting on personal presence of petitioners at the time of filing cases; Presence of complainant while filing S. 138 NI Act case not necessary

Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, CJ and S Vishwajith Shetty, J., dealt with the following issues through the