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...
Kerala High Court held that statutory provision with regard to punishment provided for commission of offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is clear that the maximum fine shall be twice the amount of the cheque and nothing more
Supreme Court held that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be transferred as per convenience of accused. However, as petitioner is a woman and a senior citizen. Therefore, she can always seek exemption from personal appearance.
In present facts of the case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the appeals held that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 would not be committed if the drawer of the cheque pays a part or whole of the sum between the period when the cheque is drawn and when it is encashed upon maturity, then the legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity would not be the sum represented on the cheque; and when a part or whole of the sum represented on the cheque is paid by the drawer of the cheque, it must be endorsed on the cheque as prescribed in Section 56 of the Act. If the cheque that is endorsed is dishonoured when it is sought to be encashed upon maturity, then the offence under Section 138 will stand attracted
Vicarious liability can be fastened on those who were incharge of and responsible to the company or firm for the conduct of its business. Supreme Court observed that a High Court can quash a cheque case only if it comes across some unimpeachable and incontrovertible evidence to indicate that the Director/partner of a firm could not have been concerned with the issuance of cheques.
Kerala High Court held that in an offence u/s. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, when the Court imposes imprisonment and fine, fine forms part of the sentence hence the court has to order payment of compensation from the amount of fine as provided under Section 357(1)(b) of CrPC.
As per proviso to section 142(c) of NI Act, Cheque Bounce/Dishonour complaint should be filed within one month after drawer of cheque received notice
In cheque Bounce case arraigning of the sole proprietary concern rather was a condition precedent for making the complaint well constituted, as it becomes the principal offender, and, with its remaining un-impleaded, as such, the absence of its impleadment cannot make the instant complaint to be well constituted, nor, any valid prosecution can in its absence, be drawn, even against the accused petitioner, who can be assigned only a vicarious liability alongwith it.
Court, while exercising power under Section 147 of Negotiable Instruments Act, can proceed to compound offence even after recording of conviction by courts below.
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.
