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 : Understanding territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Key rulings and amendments explain where cheque bounce cas...
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 : The Karnataka High Court held that a complainant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can pursue an appeal as a vic...
Income Tax : The Delhi High Court held that additional documents already referred to in a criminal complaint can be filed later under Section 3...
Corporate Law : The issue involved stringent deposit conditions imposed while granting bail in cheque dishonour cases. The High Court held such co...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court affirmed that insolvency proceedings under IBC do not bar prosecution under Section 138 of NI Act. It held that crim...
Corporate Law : The Court held that repeated dishonour of cheque and non-payment after notice established a prima facie case. It refused to quash ...
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...
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.
Supreme Court held that negligence on part of bank in presentation of cheque within the validity period of cheque leads to ‘deficiency in service’ under the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, compensation entitled to be awarded to the consumer.
The case examined whether the accused could disprove liability under Section 138. The court upheld conviction as the presumption remained unrebutted and evidence supported the complainant’s claim.
The court analysed whether the reason account blocked falls within the scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the provision applies only when dishonour is linked to insufficient funds or lack of arrangement.
The High Court examined whether proceedings under Section 138 NI Act could be quashed on the plea that cheques were issued as security. It held that such a defence involves disputed facts and must be tested at trial.
