Corporate Law : The court held that cheque dishonour caused by a statutory account freeze during insolvency does not attract criminal liability. T...
Corporate Law : upreme Court held that a trust is not a separate legal entity under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, and only its trustees can be held...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court of India ruled that presenting a cheque for its full amount after a partial payment was made does not constitute...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court in Vishnoo Mittal v. M/s Shakti Trading Company quashed proceedings against a director under Section 138 of the ...
Corporate Law : SC rules that directors cannot face Section 138 NI Act cases if the cause of action arises after insolvency proceedings begin unde...
Corporate Law : The Modi government in a bit to improve ease of doing business and unclogging courts has decided that 39 sections in 19 differen...
Corporate Law : Lok Sabha passes Negotiable Instrument (Amendment) Bill, 2018 a bill further to amend the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by whic...
Corporate Law : It is, therefore, proposed to introduce the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2017 to provide, inter alia, for the followin...
Corporate Law : Proposal to promulgate the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister Shr...
Corporate Law : The main amendment included in this is the stipulation that the offence of rejection/return of cheque u/s 138 of NI Act will be en...
Corporate Law : Tripura High Court acquitted the accused after finding the complainant failed to prove financial capacity and valid statutory noti...
Corporate Law : High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that contradictory defence evidence failed to rebut statutory presu...
Corporate Law : The Supreme Court examined whether personal insolvency proceedings under the IBC could halt cheque dishonour cases under Section 1...
Finance : The Supreme Court ruled that vicarious liability under the NI Act cannot arise solely from holding an office in a society or compa...
Corporate Law : The Karnataka High Court held that a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can pursue an appeal as a vic...
Corporate Law : Pursuant to directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, following Practice Directions are issued to all Courts dealing with case...
Finance : Central Government hereby declares every Saturday as a public holiday for Life Insurance Corporation of India, with immediate effe...
Corporate Law : This Act may be called the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018. (2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central ...
Corporate Law : MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Legislative Department) New Delhi, the 29th December, 2015 The following Act of Parliament received t...
Corporate Law : NOW THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of article 123 of the Constitution, the President is pleased to p...
Tripura High Court acquitted the accused after finding the complainant failed to prove financial capacity and valid statutory notice under Section 138 NI Act.
High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding that contradictory defence evidence failed to rebut statutory presumptions. High Court ruled that breach of Section 269SS may attract penalty but does not make a cash loan unenforceable under NI Act.
The Supreme Court examined whether personal insolvency proceedings under the IBC could halt cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. The Court held that such prosecutions are criminal in nature and continue despite insolvency moratorium protections.
The Supreme Court ruled that vicarious liability under the NI Act cannot arise solely from holding an office in a society or company. The key test is whether there is specific material showing involvement in the conduct of the entity’s affairs and the transaction in question.
The Karnataka High Court held that a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can pursue an appeal as a victim before the Sessions Court. The matter was transferred in light of the Supreme Courts ruling in Celestium Financial.
The Delhi High Court held that additional documents already referred to in a criminal complaint can be filed later under Section 311 Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that procedural defects should not obstruct substantive justice where no serious prejudice is caused.
The issue involved stringent deposit conditions imposed while granting bail in cheque dishonour cases. The High Court held such conditions excessive and reduced the requirement to 20% of the cheque amount.
Supreme Court affirmed that insolvency proceedings under IBC do not bar prosecution under Section 138 of NI Act. It held that criminal liability of directors continues independently. Ruling clarifies that both laws operate in separate spheres.
The Court held that repeated dishonour of cheque and non-payment after notice established a prima facie case. It refused to quash proceedings at the summoning stage.
The court interpreted the scope of Section 91 CrPC in summoning documents. It ruled that parties cannot demand documents as a matter of right. The judgment stresses that relevance is the key criterion.
