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 held that repeated dishonour of cheque and non-payment after notice established a prima facie case. It refused to quash ...
Corporate Law : The court interpreted the scope of Section 91 CrPC in summoning documents. It ruled that parties cannot demand documents as a matt...
Corporate Law : Supreme Court held that negligence on part of bank in presentation of cheque within the validity period of cheque leads to ‘defi...
Corporate Law : The case examined whether the accused could disprove liability under Section 138. The court upheld conviction as the presumption r...
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 : 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 offence is said to be committed under Section 138 of the NI Act, only when he fails to pay the debt within 15 days and such person shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with a fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both.
Charanjeet Singh Saini Vs Ispat India (Chhattisgarh High Court) Now referring back to the allegations and averments made in the complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, though the petitioners have been described somewhere in the petition as Director in some petition for and on behalf of Saini Industries Limited would make it clear […]
Delhi High Court upholds conviction in cheque bounce case. Revision petition dismissed. Learn more about the legal implications of bounced cheques.
Vijaya Vs Shekharappa (Karnataka High Court) Legislature has cautiously worded sub-section (1) of Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 not to make it mandatory in all cases where clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) would empower the learned Magistrate before whom proceedings are pending consideration to award interim compensation. It is the discretion […]
Tedhi Singh Vs Narayan Dass Mahant (Supreme Court of India) The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have noted that in the case under Section 138 of the N. I. Act the complainant need not show in the first instance that he had the capacity. The proceedings under Section 138 of the N. I. […]
G.k. Construction Company Vs Balaji Makan Samagri Stores (Rajasthan High Court) The core question whether the usage of word ‘may’ in section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides a discretion to the Court to impose or not to impose the condition of depositing minimum 20% of the fine amount, is required to be dilated […]
High Court held that in absence of specific allegations about the applicant he cannot be prosecuted for any offence under section 138 N.I. Act (Cheque Bounce Case).
Vikram Singh Vs Shyoji Ram (Supreme Court of India) SC observed that it is surprising that on the one hand, the Bank Managers have specifically deposed that no such bank account was opened and maintained in their bank while on the other hand the cheque drawn by the respondent in favour of the appellant, was […]
Held that the position that would emerge is that when a company is the payee of the cheque based on which a complaint is filed under Section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant necessarily should be the Company which would be represented by an employee who is authorized.
Gopala Krishna Mootha Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr (Delhi High Court) In a Complaint under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the NI Act a person cannot avoid liability by merely stating that owing to his age he is unable to manage the affairs of the company It is not […]
