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 court analysed whether the reason account blocked falls within the scope of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It ...
Corporate Law : The High Court examined whether proceedings under Section 138 NI Act could be quashed on the plea that cheques were issued as secu...
Corporate Law : While alteration of the cheque amount is a material alteration under law, the court ruled that consent and responsibility for alte...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that under Section 138 of the NI Act, a separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a Cheque. Thus, ...
Corporate Law : The judgment clarifies that courts must first be satisfied about sufficient cause for delay before entertaining a belated cheque b...
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 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.
While alteration of the cheque amount is a material alteration under law, the court ruled that consent and responsibility for alteration are factual questions. The complaint was not quashed at the pre-trial stage.
Supreme Court held that under Section 138 of the NI Act, a separate cause of action arises upon each dishonour of a Cheque. Thus, multiple cheques arise from one transaction will give arise to separate prosecution u/s. 138 of NI Act.
The court held that cheque dishonour caused by a statutory account freeze during insolvency does not attract criminal liability. The key takeaway is that lawful incapacity, not default, defeats Section 138 prosecutions.
The judgment clarifies that courts must first be satisfied about sufficient cause for delay before entertaining a belated cheque bounce complaint. Any reverse procedure violates Section 142 of the NI Act.
Court held that a cheque initially issued as security can mature into an enforceable liability once loan recall conditions are triggered. Disputed facts on repayment and breach must be examined at trial, not at quashing stage.
The Court held that violation of the ₹20,000 cash-loan limit under tax law attracts only penalty and does not void the debt. Cheque-bounce prosecutions under Section 138 NI Act remain valid despite such breaches.
The Court held that once evidence under Section 145 NI Act has commenced, returning the complaint solely due to the 2015 jurisdictional amendment is improper. It restored the case to the Kolkata court, emphasizing continuity of proceedings and preventing prejudice to either party.
Court held that cheque was issued for repayment of an unlawful job-related payment, which is not a legally enforceable debt. Acquittal was upheld as Section 138 NI Act did not apply.
