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...
N.C. Goel & Maya Goel Vs Piyush Infrastructure India Private Limited (NCLT Allahabad) In this case Copies of the post-dated cheques issued by the Corporate Debtor for repayment of principal amount have been enclosed. However, these cannot be taken to be unqualified admission of debt because the presumptions drawn under section 118 and section 139 […]
Harsh Sehgal Vs State & Anr (Delhi High Court) Facts- The complainant/respondent no. 2, Galaxy Datamatics Pvt. Ltd., averred that the accused no. 1, M/S Takshila Retail Pvt. Ltd., earlier known as M/s Blues Clothing Pvt. Ltd., accused no. 2, Dinesh Sehgal and accused no. 3, Harsh Sehgal, approached the respondent no.2 for a short-term […]
The Government legislated the Negotiable Instrument Act in 1991 making cheque bounce a criminal offence. But the delay in disposal of cases frustrated the very spirit of the NI Act.
R.Barathbaran (Died) Vs R. Nallathambi (Madras High Court) There is no mandatory provision under the Negotiable Instruments Act that both the signature and thump impression has to be obtained for a pro-note and the lower Appellate Judge has totally misguided and misused the provision of the Negotiable Instruments Act, regarding burden of proof and not […]
Submission of petitioners that proceeding for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC is not maintainable once the complainant invokes Section 138 of NI Act is unacceptable.
Geeta Singh Vs Pradeep Singh (Delhi High Court) If a company is a drawer of the cheque, it is a necessary party to proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the NI Act. The liability of a private person, in his capacity of a Director or any other authority to act on behalf of the Company, […]
Hari Shamsher Kaushik Vs Jasbir Singh, Managing Director, M/S Accura Care Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi High Court) Petitioner submitted that the learned Trial Court dismissed the complaint observing that since the company had not been impleaded as an accused, the liability of the respondent as its Managing Director could not be attached under section 141 […]
Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (Supreme Court) The issue to be answered here is whether summons and trial notice should have been quashed on the basis of factual defences. The corollary therefrom is what should be the responsibility of the quashing Court and whether it must weigh the evidence presented […]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as NI Act) is the safety net for those creditors (deemed or actual) who face difficulties in recovering defaulted amount, on account of debt or any other liability. Section 138 of the NI Act prescribes criminal liability onto such defaulter on account of dishonorment of cheque(s) which includes imprisonment for a maximum period of 2 years or fine upto twice the amount of cheque.
Dilip Hariramani Vs Bank of Baroda (Supreme Court of India) It is common knowledge that complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for dishonour of cheques are usually made against the directors of the company or the partners of the partnership firm and the company or the partnership firm are not arraigned […]
