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...
Petitioner filed instant petition under Section 482 of Cr. P. C challenging four complaints filed by respondent against him alleging commission of offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. These four complaints pertain to four different cheques.
A drawer who signs a cheque and hands it over to the payee, is presumed to be liable unless the drawer adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque has been issued towards payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. The presumption arises under Section 139.
Held that provisions contained in Section 138 of the NI Act is to be interpreted in a liberal manner so as to achieve the object for which the said provision has been enacted. Thus, dishonor of cheque due to difference in signatures is also covered under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
Section 142(2) of N.I. Act clears that no classification of cheque, as bearer or cross cheque/account payee cheque is made for jurisdiction
An order of winding-up which automatically came into force upon a default in compliance with the consent terms executed on behalf of the company, and its directors could not be placed on the same pedestal as an order passed on merits, especially in a case like the one at hand where it appeared to be in the nature of a device to obviate the liability at that moment. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for quashing of the complaints under section 138 read with 141 of the NI Act.
It also observed that the conviction of the petitioner is under the NI Act which are ordinarily treated as minor offences in criminal jurisprudence.
Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, as per which, a presumption is raised in favour of the complainant that the notice had, in fact, been delivered.
Can cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque in terms of Section 138(c) of the Act aforementioned?
Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar Vs Laxmikant Govind Joshi (Bombay High Court) Held that the provisions of section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are directory and not mandatory as a discretion was conferred upon the Court, to either grant or not to grant interim compensation. Facts- The respondent/Complainant filed proceedings u/s. 138 of NI Act, […]
Held that the liability under Section 138/141 of the NI Act arises from being in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed, and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company.
