Corporate Law : Understanding territorial jurisdiction under Section 138 of the NI Act. Key rulings and amendments explain where cheque bounce cas...
Corporate Law : Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that offences under the NI Act can be compounded even after conviction, following settlement bet...
Corporate Law : भारत में विवादित चेक को नियंत्रित करने वाले एनआई ...
Corporate Law : Explore directors' liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act during the moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy...
Corporate Law : Explore the mounting backlog of cheque bounce cases in India, the legal procedures involved, the jurisdiction of cases, and how to...
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 : Bombay High Court grants leave to file an appeal in Jaikiran Prabhaji Nagari Sahakari's case against Santosh Chudaman Patil after ...
Corporate Law : Madhya Pradesh HC ruled IBC proceedings do not exempt signatories from liability under NI Act. Court upheld Rs. 13.73 lakh deposit...
Corporate Law : Regarding Section 14 of the IBC, court clarified that moratorium only applies to corporate debtor, not to natural persons like dir...
Corporate Law : Explore the Supreme Court judgment on whether directors who resigned can be held liable for dishonored negotiable instruments. Und...
Corporate Law : Karnataka High Court revolved around Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 in case of Shashikala Jayaram vs. Appayappa - ...
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...
Thus, we are of the view that although the cheque might have been duly obtained from its lawful owner i.e. the respondent-accused, it was used for unlawful reason as it appears to have been submitted for encashment on a date when it was not meant to be presented as in that event the respondent would have had no reason to ask for a loan from the complainant if he had the capacity to discharge the loan amount on the date when the cheque had been issued. In any event, it leaves the complainant’s case in the realm of grave doubt on which the case of conviction and sentence cannot be sustained.
Recently the Supreme Court in M/s Laxmi Dye Chem Vs State of Gujarat & Ors set aside the order of high court of which quashed the Complaints filed before the trial court u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881(NI Act) for dishnour of cheques.
complaint under section 138 of the Act without signature is maintainable when such complaint is verified by the complainant and the process is issued by the Magistrate after due verification. The prosecution of such complaint is maintainable and we agree with the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench of the High Court. Consequently, both the appeals fail and are dismissed.
SCset aside verdict of GujaratHC which had held that criminal proceedings for dishonouring of cheque can be initiated only when the cheque is dishonoured because of lack of sufficient amount in the bank account and not in case where a cheque is returned due to mismatch of signature of account holder.
A creditor can maintain a winding up petition if he complies with the provisions of Sections 433, 434 and 439 of the said Act of 1956. In the present case, the respondent-Bank was admittedly a creditor of the company. The company did not dispute such relationship. The company did not dispute receipt of the notice, hence, the winding up petition was maintainable.
We overrule the decision in Sadanandan Bhadran’s case (supra) and hold that prosecution based upon second or successive dishonour of the cheque is also permissible so long as the same satisfies the requirements stipulated in the proviso to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
If the offence is by a Company, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative: the company can have criminal liability and further, if a group of persons that guide the business of the companies have the criminal intent, that would be imputed to the body corporate. In this backdrop, Section 141 of the Act has to be understood. The said provision clearly stipulates that when a person which is a company commits an offence, then certain categories of persons in charge as well as the company would be deemed to be liable for the offences under Section 138. Thus, the statutory intendment is absolutely plain. As is perceptible, the provision makes the functionaries and the companies to be liable and that is by deeming fiction.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on the judgment in G. Sagar Suri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 636, wherein during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 138 N.I. Act, prosecution under Sections 406/420 IPC had been launched. This Court quashed the criminal proceedings under Sections 406/420 IPC, observing that it would amount to abuse of process of law. In fact, the issue as to whether the ingredients of both the offences were same, had neither been raised nor decided.
The Delhi high court has stated that while issuing a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an omnibus notice without specifying the amount due under the dishonoured cheque, not even calling upon the alleged accused to pay the amount of cheque, will not meet the requirement of the law. Quashing the complaint in the case, Brainobrain Kids Academy Ltd vs Continental Advertising Ltd, the court noted that the demand for return of the amount is an essential ingredient to constitute an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. Thus, if the amount is not specified, the same cannot be said to be a valid demand.
JIK Industries Limited & Ors. Vs. Amarlal V. Jumani (Supreme Court)- It was held that cases of bounced cheque are independent of the revival bid of a sick company. Proceedings in bounced cheque cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act will continue even if there is a scheme to revive the sick company. The revival attempt under the Companies Act will not affect prosecution of charges under Section 138 of the Act. The charges cannot be compounded as in other cases under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
