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...
Respondent, by way of rebuttal evidence has failed to probablize its defence to disprove statutory presumption available in favour of Appellant. Such failure has proved charge leveled against Respondent for offence under Section 138 of NI Act.
As per section 143-A of Negotiable Instrument Act, the court trying an offense under section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant even where the accused is denying its liability or pleading not guilty to the accusation of the complainant which shall not be exceeding 20% of the amount of the cheque payable within 60 days.
Man Mohan Patnaik Vs Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt.Ltd & Ors. (Delhi High Court) Upon a bare perusal of section 138 of the NI Act, it is evident that the genesis of an offence under that provision is the ‘return’ of a cheque by a bank ‘unpaid’, inter-alia for insufficiency of funds in the account […]
The Hon’ble Madras High Court held that it is settled law that in the case under Section 138 of NI Act Section 139 of NI Act provides that the Court shall presume that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred into Section 138 of NI Act
The provision of Section 142 (b) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be considered to be effective with retrospective effect.
Explore the onus to prove in cheque bounce cases (Section 138 NI Act) through a comprehensive analysis of relevant provisions and key judgments. Understand the legal debt presumption, shifting onus, and the role of statements, ITR filings, and financial capacity in establishing or challenging legal transactions. Get insights into case laws and a balanced perspective on the burden of proof for both complainants and accused in cheque bounce cases.
Sunita W/O Bharatkumar Aitawade Vs Vidya W/O Sagar Aitawade (Karnataka High Court) The cheque in question was issued on 01.08.2019. The petitioners, who were the Directors of the Company, ceased to be the Directors of the Company with effect from 22.03.2017 which is evident from the Form No.DIR-12 issued by Registrar of the Companies and the same […]
Karnataka High Court held that contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act doesn’t make the entire transaction of loan void. Non-payment of the same held guilty of commission of offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
HC held that wife cannot be made accused for dishonor of the cheque issued by her husband and he alone can be prosecuted for the same.
District Court New Delhi held that the prosecution u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot be dismissed or stalled for non-compliance of Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act. Such violation may give rise to an independent criminal offence, but, the prosecution of the accused for the alleged dishonour of cheque u/s 138 NI Act does not become bad in law.
