#1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Jurisdiction Presentation of cheque to theBank - Whether it is the drawee bank or the collecting bank? Held, 'the bank' is the drawee bank and not the collecting bank - Jurisdiction lies in a Court not at the place where cheque is presented for collection but at the place of drawee bank Complainant cannot confer jurisdiction on any Court by merely choosing to entrust the cheque for collection to a bank of his choice. (M.S.Santhoshkumar Vs K.G.Mohanan), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 097 (KERALA) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 284 (KERALA) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice Presumption of service of notice - Presumption arises when notice is sent by registered post Even when a notice is received back with an endorsement that the party has refused to accept, still then a presumption can be raised as regards the valid service of notice. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Delay - Condonation - Insertion of proviso to S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay - However, insertion of the proviso is not retrospective in nature. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Amendment - Court has no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the complaint petition at a later stage. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Necessary ingredients of the offence are : (1) a cheque was issued; (ii) the same was presented; (iii) it was dishonoured; (iv) a notice was served on the person sought to be made liable and; (v) despite service of notice, neither any payment was made nor other obligations, if any, were complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Service of notice - Thirty days time ordinarily must be held to be sufficient for service of notice. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent by registered post with acknowledgment due to a correct address - Service of notice has to be presumed. (M/s.Indo Automobiles Vs M/s.Jai Durga Enterprises & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 027 (S.C.) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent by registered post to correct address of the drawer - Notice returned with endorsement must be presumed to be served to the drawer and the burden to show that the drawee had managed to get an incorrect postal endorsement letter on the complainant and affixed thereof have to be considered during trial on the background facts of the case. (M/s.Indo Automobiles Vs M/s.Jai Durga Enterprises & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 027 (S.C.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Directors - An allegation in the complaint that the named accused are Directors of the company itself would usher in the element of their acting for and on behalf of the company and of their being in charge of the company. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Director - A person in the commercial world having a transaction with a company is entitled to presume that the Directors of the company are in charge of the affairs of the company - If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company, it is for the Directors to establish it at the trial. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Directors - Resigned before cheques were issued - However, From No.32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies much after the cheques were issued - Held, the effect of delayed presentation before the Registrar of companies can only be decided after parties lead evidence Order quashing proceedings set aside. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Post dated cheque - To constitute offence u/s 420 IPC fraudulent or dishonest inducement on the part of the accused must be at the inception and not at a subsequent stage - When the post dated cheques were issued the accounts were operative - Even assuming that the account was closed subsequently the same would not mean the appellant had an intention to cheat when the post dated cheques were issued. (Subodh S.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Shah & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque Presumption - Rebuttal - The rebuttal would not have to be conclusively established - However, evidence must be adduced in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable - Standard of reasonability is that of a prudent man. (M/s.Coldspot Vs M/s.Naik Hotels & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 070 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation Awarded and paid - A duty is cast upon civil courts to take into account the sum paid or recovered as compensation - Superior Courts can take into consideration such payments received even after passing of decree by trial Court. (D.Purushotama Reddy & Anr. Vs K.Sateesh), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 528 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 287 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 383 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3202 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Twice the amount of cheque - Court is competent to award sentence of fine equivalent to double the amount of cheque - Provision of S.29 Cr.P.C. which limits the amount of fine to Rs.5, 000/- is not applicable u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (Sandeep Mittal Vs Pardeep Bhalla), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 116 (P&H) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque Complaint - Delay - Condonation - 13 days delay - Supported by an affidavit - Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay - Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed - Delay condoned. (P.S.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Hegde), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint Amendment - Amendment sought with regard to date of presentation of cheque with the Bank as well as memo of dishonour of cheque by the Banker of the accused - Held, complaint was defective and this was not a mere technical defect - Such a defect goes to the root of the matter which cannot be allowed to be amended. (V.K.Gupta Vs Manjit Kaur), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 139 (P&H) #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by payee - Power of attorney holder cannot be said to be either the payee or the holder in due course - Summoning order set aside. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142(b)-- - Dishonour of cheque Complaint signed by power of attorney holder - Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course - Summoning order set aside - Complaint remitted back - Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr.P.C. Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #20: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Plea that date of service of notice not mentioned in complaint - Notice sent by registered post - There is presumption of delivery of letter, properly addressed and sent by registered post unless contrary is proved - Held, there is no force in the contention of accused. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.P. & Anr.), 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company Prosecution of Company, Chairman and Vice-President - Petition by Vice-President for quashing of proceedings - Specific plea in complaint that Vice-President negotiated with the complainant in respect of the transaction and held out assurances that liability would be cleared - It will be decided during trial if Vice-President has acted on behalf of company i.e. accused No.1 or not Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Devender Raina Vs State & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (DELHI) #22: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused convicted and sentenced to three months imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.50, 000/- - Revision against - Cheque amount Rs.35, 300/- - Accused agreeable to pay the compensation double the amount of cheque immediately - Accused to pay Rs.70, 000/- as compensation to complainant and to suffer imprisonment till rising of Court. (Biswanath Singhania Vs Kumud Ranjan Sinha), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 188 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 118 (CALCUTTA) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque Compromise after conviction - Order of conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque Compromise after conviction - Table appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted to offences under Negotiable Instruments Act - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint in default - Held, it would be too harsh on the petitioner to non suit him merely for his non appearance on one date - Non appearance not intentional - Complaint restored. (Purushotam Mantri Vs Vinod Tandon alias Hari Nath Tandon), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 064 (P&H) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge liability of another person - Cheque dishonoured - Offence u/s 138 of the act is made out. (Avtar Singh Vs Canara Bank), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (P&H) #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Two notices served - Complaint silent as to first notice - Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge. (M/s.Rishabh Nath & Ors. Vs State of U.P.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - 'Account closed' Successive presentation - Makes no sense - Whenever cheque is dishonoured on ground of account closed, payee cannot resort to successive presentation to save the limitation. (Nanjundappa Vs Hanumantharayappa), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 375 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures does not tally with the specimen - Successive presentation - Makes no sense - Whenever cheque is dishonoured on ground of 'signatures does not tally with the specimen', payee cannot resort to successive presentation to save the limitation. (Nanjundappa Vs Hanumantharayappa), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 375 (KERALA) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Complainant can choose to file the complaint only against the firm - A firm cannot possibly contend that although it has been named as an accused it need not participate in the proceedings only because the person incharge of the affairs of the company at the time of commission of the offence has not been named as an accused. (Alfa Graphics Vs Arjun Kohli), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (DELHI) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Mere reference in the complaint to 20 cheques as having been dishonoured cannot render the complaint bad in law or not maintianble. (Alfa Graphics Vs Arjun Kohli), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (DELHI) #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Complainant can choose to file a complaint only against the firm - Complainant may choose not to proceed against the individual partners as accused either because he is not aware as to who are the partners or is not interested in proceeding against the partners apart from the firm. (Alfa Graphics Vs Arjun Kohli), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (DELHI) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Reduction in sentence Cheque amount of Rs.21 lakhs - Accused convicted and sentenced to 2 years RI and to pay compensation of Rs.42 lakhs - Accused 77 years old and having health problem - Compensation reduced to Rs.21 lakhs and sentence reduced till rising of Court. (R.Sridher Vs T.K.Rajendra Sha), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (MADRAS) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through courier - Notice received back with endorsement of `Refusal' - There is presumption of service. (R.Sridher Vs T.K.Rajendra Sha), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (MADRAS) #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Accused summoned - Some evidence recorded - Quashing of complaint sought at that stage Held, appreciation of evidence does not fall within the domain of proceedings u/s 482 Cr.PC. for quashing of the complaint. (M/s.Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs The Tata Steel Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (P&H) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Quashing of Delay - Accused summoned and thereafter some evidence recorded - Held, once the evidence is already recorded in the complaint then it is not a fit case for quashing the complaint. (M/s.Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs The Tata Steel Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (P&H) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - A civil suit for recovery of money as well as a complaint u/s 138 of the Act is maintainable. (D.Purushotama Reddy & Anr. Vs K.Sateesh), 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 528 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 287 (S.C.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 383 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 3202 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Self drawn cheque - Given to complainant in discharge of legal liability - Self drawn cheque comes within the expression 'Holder in due course' - Accused is guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (Avtar Singh Vs Canara Bank), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (P&H) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Defence - Failure on the part of the accused to establish his case does not automatically be a ground to hold that the prosecution has proved its case - U/s 101 Evidence Act the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case and such burden is not discharged by showing that the accused's case is improbable or false. (Jose Vs P.C.Joy), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Consisting of two partners - Cheque signed by both the partners - Complaint against firm and both the partners - No pleading in complaint that at the time the offence was committed both the partners were incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of business of the firm Held, when complaint is in relation to a firm of which there are only two partners, it is sufficient when it is pleaded that the firm has two partners who are also arrayed as accused persons. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Pleading as to requirement of S.141 of the Act - Held, complaint has to be read as a whole - If the substance of the allegations made in the complaint fulfills the requirements of S.141 of the Act then complaint has to proceed and is required to be tried with - In construing a complaint, a hypertechnical approach is not to be adopted. (Green Sea Marine & Ors. Vs V.A.Anty & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Not necessary for accused to produce evidence - Accused can discharge the onus placed on him even on the basis of material brought on record by the complainant. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Loan of Rs.25 lacs - Complainant himself was in debt - No evidence produced to prove financial viability of complainant to raise such huge amount Conviction of accused merely because he admitted his signature on disputed cheque not proper - It does not relieve complainant from proving pre-existing debt or legal liability to pay amount shown in cheque. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by way of security - Plea that dishonour of such cheque does not attract criminal liability - There was interpolation in amount written in numbers - Fact of interpolation corroborated by expert evidence - Conviction without considering legal plea and without giving satisfactory reasons for disbelieving fact of interpolation - Set aside - Matter remanded for decision afresh. (Sudhir Kumar Bhalla Vs Jagdish Chand & etc. etc.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 496 (S.C.) #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - (Smt.Shamshad Begum Vs B.Mohammed), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 567 (S.C.) #21: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Composite notice of more than one cheque is valid. (Subhash Sahni Vs M/s.Auro Spinning Mills), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (H.P.) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Notice sent under certificate of posting at correct address - Notice not received back - There is presumption of service of notice. (First Learning Quest Private Ltd. Vs M/s Tera Construction Private Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 578 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Legally enforceable debt' - Lack of pleading - There is no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability - The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability is on the accused which they have to discharge in the trial. (First Learning Quest Private Ltd. Vs M/s Tera Construction Private Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 578 (DELHI) #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/s 139 - Available only when it is proved that cheque was drawn by accused - To draw a cheque it must be prepared by the drawer himself or cause the relevant details in the cheque to be filled up by another person under his instructions but the cheque shall be signed by the drawer himself Name of payee not written - No evidence that complainant entered his name as payee as per instructions of accused - Held, a mere signature in the cheque or a writing of the amount or date in the cheque is not sufficient to conclude that the cheque is drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. (Jose Vs P.C.Joy), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Civil suit also filed for recovery of the cheque amount - Proceedings u/s 138 of the Act cannot be quashed on ground of filing of civil suit for recovery of cheque amount. (M/s.Atma Tube Products Ltd. Vs The Tata Steel Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (P&H) #1: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning on basis of photocopies of cheque and bank memos - Summoning order suffers no illegality. (Laiq Ram Vs Bal Krishan), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 671 (H.P.) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is both technical as also one involving no moral turpitude. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons - Magistrate can dispense with personal attendance of accused at the time of issuance of summons - There is no impediment whatsoever for a fair and efficient trial if only a summons u/s 205 Cr.P.C. is issued in all prosecutions u/s 138 of the Act. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons - When summons are issued u/s 204 Cr.P.C. then at any stage before actual appearance of accused or after such appearance, power u/s 205 Cr.P.C. can be invoked. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons issued dispensing with personal attendance of accused - In such a case examination of accused u/s 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. can also be dispensed with. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - At stage of defence evidence, there is no obligation for accused to personally appear. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons issued dispensing with personal attendance of accused - Such an accused when directed only to appear to receive judgment must be held to be person to whom the benefit of S.389(3) is available. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Absence of complainant Mere absence of a complainant does not entail consequences u/s 256 Cr.P.C. - Presence of complainant can only be insisted if progress of the case demands such appearance - On all other dates from the date of filing of complaint to date of judgment he can also be permitted to be represented by his counsel. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - In a prosecution u/s 138 of the Act discretion u/s 205 Cr.P.C. must be exercised in favour of accused. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons issued dispensing with personal attendance of accused - In such a case plea of accused can be recorded through his counsel. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued in favour of proprietorship firm - Complaint filed by proprietor of firm - Accused denied that complainant was proprietor of the said concern - No evidence adduced that complainant was the proprietor of the firm in whose favour the cheque was issued - Held, complainant was not entitled to file the complaint - Accused acquitted of all the charges. (Kalim M.Khan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summons issued dispensing with personal attendance of accused - If accused is acquitted or accused is convicted and sentenced with a fine only then it is not necessary to insist on personal presence of accused to receive judgment - However, if sentence is one of substantive imprisonment, then accused can be directed u/s 205(2) Cr.P.C. to appear personally. (Mrs.Jain Babu Vs K.J.Joseph), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 625 (KERALA) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT 138-. 1881.Bank account attached by Court . 1881.It causes no prejudice to the accused .).). (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt. complainant need not to wait to present the same again and can proceed with the prosecution of the accused.Plea to be raised during trial.Dishonour of cheque . Vs Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Ltd. 1881. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 784 (GUJARAT) #24: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Act of attachment of bank account of drawer cannot be said to be a voluntary act of the drawer.Being Director of the company a Director is not jointly and severally liable for the acts of the company .).Dishonour of cheque . 138-. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Conviction upheld.Accused not liable .Company .). (Krishan Gupta & Anr.Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground .No averment in complaint that at the time when offence was committed accused No.Premature complaint Payment not made at all .Ltd. 138.Notice ..Post dated cheque . 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.).Issuance of cheque without having sufficient balance in the account of the drawer does not by itself tantamount to the commission of an offence u/s 138 of the Act.Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground.. (Citichem India Ltd. 118-. & Anr.Held.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.).Power of attorney given by one of the Directors .Cheque dishonoured with endorsement 'present again' . Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 712 (DELHI) #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-.Non mention in complaint as to reply given to statutory notice .Contention that the substantive sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation could not have been imposed rejected.. 142-. & Anr. complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) .Khan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. 138-. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt. 138-. 1881. & Anr. 138. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY) #14: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company Complaint must be filed by a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. (Vijay Choudhary Vs Gyan Chand Jain). 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (CALCUTTA) #15: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions. 1881. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 350 (DELHI) .Held..Dishonour of cheque .. (Kalim M. 138-.Filed by power of attorney holder ..It is a conditional offer . (Citichem India Ltd. 1881.Court may enforce order of payment of compensation by imposing sentence in default ..). 1881.In reply to notice offer made to make payment by giving other cheques .Offence u/s 138 of the Act is committed. Vs Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Ltd.Sentence . & Anr.). & Anr..Company . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . & Anr. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Ltd. 141-. 138.On such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 784 (GUJARAT) #22: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Vijay Choudhary Vs Gyan Chand Jain). 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .. 1881. 139.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 712 (DELHI) #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138-. 1881.Cannot be said that drawer was ready and willing to make the payment .Notice .Ltd.Presumption available u/ss 138.`Stop payment' . 138-. 138.2 to 7 were incharge and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company .Dishonour of cheque .Directors . (Citichem India Ltd.Complaint against accused 2 to 7 quashed.).Ltd. Vs Gujarat Alkalies & Chemical Ltd.). 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 784 (GUJARAT) #23: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Anoop Jhalani Vs State & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #21: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139-. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh).Second cheque also dishonoured .A creditor is not supposed to know are the sleeping directors or actively involved directors in the management of the company .Dishonour of Cheque .Petitioner directed to pay compensation of Rs.Golden Forest India Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .). 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (S. (Om Parkash Vs M/s.Sentence of 1 year awarded to accused reduced to period of 2 months already undergone .Golden Forest India Ltd.).to the complainant..).To rebut presumption it is not necessary to lead positive evidence .). 1881.Even for the said purpose.Wrong date noted by counsel . 138-. held. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .P. 1881. 138.Magistrate cannot order restoration of complaint even if complainant shows very good reasons for his failure to be present on the date of dismissal of complaint . 139-. (Lalit Kumar Sharma & Anr.Onus to prove is on person who asserts so .Death of complainant ..Reason for non appearance. Vs Oswal Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd..15.Dishonour of cheque . & Ors.If any Director of the company claims that he was not the person looking after the affairs of the company this fact has to be proved by him by leading cogent evidence before the trial Court . 1881. 1881. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.As the compromise did not fructify.Presumption as to . 1881. 138-. bonafide . 138.Dismissal of complaint in default ... 138-.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.A new cheque in lieu of cheque dishonoured issued .Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record .The only remedy available to the complainant is to approach High Court u/s 482 Cr. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 105 (P&H) #5: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Om Parkash Vs M/s.For rebutting such presumption. (Lalit Kumar Sharma & Anr. the same cannot be said to have been issued towards payment of debt.Accused neither examined himself nor examined any witness . Vs State of U.Jurisdiction .). 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 945 (P&H) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 096 (P&H) #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Ingredients of the provision are : (i) that there is a legally enforceable debt. (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt.Cheque amount Rs.Rebuttable .C.Dishonour of cheque .Issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability ..Complaint . 1881. 138-.Compensation . and (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds. 138.P. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .C. (Bharat Poonam Chand Shah Vs Dominors Printech India Pvt.).R's .An application filed to bring on record L. 138-.Application not pressed despite numerous hearings .Court at the place where cheque was given in respect of transactions made at that place has jurisdiction to try the offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint on the basis of second cheque is not maintainable as second cheque issued in terms of compromise does not create a new liability .30.Parties compromised . 138-. 000/.None represented the complainant on 14 dates .P.Dismissal of complaint in default .Cheque without consideration . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C. what is needed is to raise a probable defence .Dishonour of cheque .Burden of proving that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of any debt or other liability was thus not discharged. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (S.Dishonour of cheque . 141-.. 138-. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 132 (ORISSA) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs State of U. & Anr.Resignation of the petitioner from the company is a defence of the petitioner which he can take before the trial Court .Accused attended Court . 000/..Company .Complaint ordered to be restored.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 792 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (DELHI) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Ltd.#25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Petition to quash summoning order dismissed. 1881.Khan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.). the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon.Directors .).. 1881. & Ors. (Kalim M. (Mahesh Jain & Anr. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 105 (P&H) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sleeping director ..Complaint ..Dishonour of cheque . for setting aside the order of dismissal of complaint. (Charanjit Singh Vs Brij Mohan Gupta & Anr. & Anr. Vs J.Accused directed to pay double the amount of cheque instead of payment of cheque amount as ordered by Courts below and in case of default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (S. 1881. 138-.The only course available to an aggrieved . (A. 138. 138-.C.Accused rightly acquitted by trial Court..C. 138-.Rajda Vs State of Maharashtra).Once cause of action has accrued to the complainant at the time of dishonour of cheque.Directors .No impediment in initiating proceedings u/s 138 of the Act against company or its Directors. Joint Managing Director and three Directors . 138.).. 1881. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 446 (S.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 266 (S.Held. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .C. 1881.).Dishonour of cheque . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. it is not open to complainant to present the cheque for the second time to bring the matter in limitation .Mere fact that at one point of time some role has been played by the accused may not by itself be sufficient to attract the constructive liability under Section 141 of the Act.No offence is committed u/s 138 of the Act when such a cheque is dishonoured.C.M. (R.) 152 : 2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3) RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255 #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.M.A legal fiction has been created thereby The statute being a penal one. 141-.. 1881.Failure to produce even loan agreement .L.Dishonour of cheque .It is sufficient compliance within the meaning of S.C. Vs J..Hindustan Cables Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .Company . company . 139-.Blank cheque alleged to be issued at the time of joining the committee being run by complainant ..C. (S. (Naranjan Lal Sharma Vs Usha Bansal).Recall of summoning order .141 of the Act .C.Rebuttal of presumption as to issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability .Dishonour of cheque .It requires strict compliance of the provision .) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 303 (S. 141-..Company . & Ors. 138.Verma & Ors. 1881.. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 314 (P&H) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.S. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .To rebut presumption accused need not to lead positive evidence .Dishonour of cheque .) : AIR 2008 SC 2066 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.BIFR declared the company sick . 141-.Cheque issued by Govt..(S.141 of the Act provides for a constructive liability . 138-.Financial condition of complainant not such as to lend an amount of Rs.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 192 (S.Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh). Vs State Govt. & Ors. 1881. (M/s.Dishonour of cheque ..Rama Krishna Vs S. 1881. should receive strict construction .) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 891 . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 209 (P&H) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Presumption stands rebutted . 000/.) : 2008(3) RCR(CRL. 138.Magistrate cannot recall the summoning order .).C.Complaint quashed.Company Complaint against Chairman.Defence of accused that they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company .Allegation that they were officers and responsible for the affairs of the company . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 326 (DELHI) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Verma & Ors. (Satish Kumar Vs Mohan Singh Gidda).) : 2008(2) KLT 983 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 2357 #12: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 291 (S.Complainant a businessman not producing any account to prove advancement of loan ..No ground to quash the complaint. (Paresh P. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.B.Srinivasa Sah).Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no averment they were incharge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the company.Dishonour of cheque .Accused summoned being Directors of Company . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (MADRAS) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402 (MADRAS) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 413 (S. 138-.K. that complainant had pleaded in his complaint that petitioners were directors of the company and were in-charge and responsible for the affairs and business of the Company .N.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (S.Specific averments in the complaint petition so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act are imperative . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 084 (DELHI) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.for not less than 20 occasions after the death of the original complainant .Sareen & Anr. (DCM Financial Services Ltd.S.Complaint on the basis of dishonour of cheque for the second time .Raja Sah Vs B.Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record.80.Compensation . Dishonour of cheque . & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .S.Lloyds Finance Ltd.It is only when these three conditions are satisfied that the provisions of section 138 would be attracted.Tai-Pan Traders Ltd. 138-.Hindustan Cables Ltd. 1881.).Sanction for prosecution . that when the initial complaint itself was defective there arises no question of substitution of legal heirs . that great prejudice will be caused to complainant if his complaint goes undefended particularly when the amount involved is Rs.. 138-. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It is a defective complaint as complaint must be signed by the complainant .However.) 152 : 2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3) RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint signed and verified by power of attorney holder . Vs J.Signatures admitted .. State Transport Corporation towards payment of instalments or payment of loan .Death of complainant before curing said defect . 1881.Pre mature complaint - . (Gaurav Singh Rathore & Anr.N.Aefloat Textiles (India) Ltd.Sareen & Anr. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.Demand of higher amount than amount of cheque .D.Public servant .P. (M/s.Complaint quashed.. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 503 (BOMBAY) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.22 of SICA does not create any legal impediment for instituting and proceeding with a criminal case u/s 138 of the Act .) : 2008(3) RCR(CRL.Suresh Vs M/s.Boghara Polyfab Pvt. was performing only his official functions . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 358 (BOMBAY) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. & Ors. 1881.Raja Sah Vs B.Sanction for prosecution is mandatory before cognizance of offence u/s 138 NI Act is taken . (Tajuddin M.Held. 1881. and (iii) that the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice . & Anr.Non appearance of complainant .)..138 of the Act three conditions required to be fulfilled are : (i) that the cheque must be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn.Dishonour of cheque . once signatures in the impugned cheques were admitted then there is presumption u/s 139 of the Act. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 334 (P&H) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 617 (P&H) #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Director who resigned before presentation and dishonour of cheque cannot be prosecuted.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 266 (S.M. it is a curable defect .4. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar). 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 326 (DELHI) #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mr.Ink used in filling the body of cheque different from ink used in appending signatures .D.. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (MADRAS) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402 (MADRAS) #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.M. 138-. that filling up of the blanks in cheque by itself does not amount to forgery.Dismissal in default .Dishonour of cheque .Company declared sick by BIFR . (K.Srinivasa Sah).person is to challenge the summoning order by filing a petition u/s 482 Cr. & Anr. 138-.). 1881.).C. Vs M/s.. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (DELHI) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .Roy Joseph Creado & Ors.C. (M/s.M. S.Power of attorney holder sought leave of Court to prosecute the complaint on her behalf .) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 303 (S.Held.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 138-. Ltd..Summoning order quashed.C.Held.).. 1881. 1881.27 lakhs Complaint restored.Prior sanction for prosecution not taken . 1881.Ambassador Cards Pvt.Dishonour of cheque .. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 443 (BOMBAY) #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Summoning order upheld. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 139-. Ltd.B. (ii) that the payee makes a demand of the amount by giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within 30 days of the receipt of information of dishonour of the cheque.It is not a statutory notice .Held. Vs M/s.Dishonour of cheque . 138.C. Vs Sk. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 350 (DELHI) #21: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-..Somji Vs Jivrai Raoji Gandhi & Jivraj Raoji & Anr. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 446 (S.Summoning order passed by Magistrate u/s 138 of the Act set aside.For application of the provision of S. Vs State & Anr.Cheque issued by M.Dishonour of cheque . Vs State Govt. (M/s.Tamisuddin). (A.Company .Held.). 1881.Post dated cheque . (DCM Financial Services Ltd. describing himself as the sole proprietor of the `payee'.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself. 1881.Complaint is maintainable so long as the identification of human individual behind the curtain is possible without any mistake. 1881. 142-.Sworn statement of attorney holder . 138.C.C.Complaint can be filing by describing viz. 1881.Proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground of non existence of debt or legally enforceable liability.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.. 138. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors..Existence of a debt or legally enforceable liability .C. 142-..In view of difference of opinion matter referred to larger bench. 1881. 1881.Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of attorney holder . 138. (M/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.C. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 503 (BOMBAY) #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Proprietorship concern .Dishonour of cheque . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.). 142-.Complaint u/s 138 of the Act .) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 141-.Held. (M/s..Proprietorship concern .) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.Can only be decided after parties lead evidence .Complaint u/s.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.C. 139-.) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ. 1881.).In a criminal complaint u/s.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s.Proprietorship concern .) #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by proprietor .Difference of opinion as to whether signatory only can be prosecuted without prosecution of company .Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 1881.Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is personally aware of the transactions..) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S. a proprietary concern of Mr.Dishonour of cheque . complaint is duly filed by the payee. 1881. a sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC. 142-.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.. (Natesha Securities Vs Vinayak Waman Mokashi & Anr.Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by drawer of cheque Complaint not maintainable.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (Tajuddin M.). 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S. (1) ABC.Proprietorship concern .). 138.Dishonour of cheque .). 138.Power of Attorney holder . describing itself as a sole proprietary concern.Dishonour of cheque . and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor.Presumption Rebuttable presumption . 1881.).. 138.This is a rebuttable presumption which can be rebutted only by the person ..Proprietorship concerned .Proprietorship firm Complaint filed against proprietorship firm through its proprietor .138 of the Act . (M/s.Company Prosecution of signatory without prosecution of company itself . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S. 142-.. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 463 (BOMBAY) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 056 (BOMBAY) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.DEF. sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ.Presumption that cheque was issued for a debt or liability is in favour of holder of cheque . 141-.). represented by its sole proprietor.). 141-.) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.).C.Power of Attorney holder can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of his Principal. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr. (M/s. (Abhay Prabhaker Lele Vs Raosaheb Mahaveer Chimanna & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 138. 138-. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S. (M/s. (M/s.Dishonour of cheque ..Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern.Dishonour of cheque . and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee.Dishonour of cheque . Ltd.Power of attorney holder . 138. (ii) The proprietary concern. 138.C.Somji Vs Jivrai Raoji Gandhi & Jivraj Raoji & Anr.). Suspension of sentence . 138-. 138.).1.C.).Dismissal in default .Summoning order quashed. 138.141 of the Act . 000/. 1881.1.Accused facing trial since 1.. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar). 000/..Attracts penal provision of S. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (RAJASTHAN) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds .Loan given from personal account .Complaint dismissed for inability of police to execute non bailable warrants entrusted to them on the ground that complainant did not take steps for execution .Dishonour of cheque .Complaint .Offence under Act is compoundable .1.).85..No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning . 138-.10.Dishonour of cheque .25.Sentence suspended on condition of depositing amount of Rs. that if non bailable warrants entrusted to police are not executed.. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Appeal allowed . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KERALA) #23: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 645 (A. Court has to take steps to see that they are executed by taking such steps as are available to it ..Dishonour of cheque . Vs State of Haryana & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U. 1881. & Ors. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar).Non bailable warrants issued against accused as they failed to appear inspite of many opportunities given to them Case was fixed for recording statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.P.Non appearance of complainant Instead of dismissing the complaint in default Magistrate ought to have adjourned the complaint to another date. 138-. 1881. 138.Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant .Complainant permitted to compound offence - . 1881. 000/. 000/. 138-. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company .138 of the Act . & Ors..Dishonour of cheque . (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar).P.Cheque issued for time barred debt .Held.). (Vinod Hingorani Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. 138-. 1881.Accused convicted.Complaint .who drew the cheque. 1881. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Sooryan Vs Sreedharan).Dishonour of cheque . 1881.only.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint not stating that on the date of commission of offence.Held. 141.For this reason complaint might not have felt the necessity to reflect the same in his income-tax return No interference in order of conviction.Order of Magistrate dismissing complaint set aside. 142-. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.9.Cheque amount Rs.out of fine of Rs.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint fixed for recording preliminary evidence .) #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 147-.imposed and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 45 days . 1881.Compromise in revision . (Danvanti Mutual Benefits Ltd. (Subramanian Vs Krishnakumar).Criminal Court cannot compel complainant to file proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 007 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (P&H) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act... 138-. .. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 675 (BOMBAY) #20: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Babu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. 25. applicant was in any way in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company . 145-.Loan . 25. 1881.Accused convicted and sentenced to one year RI and to pay fine of Rs.Amount not reflected in Income-tax return .No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque . (Sri Lakshmi Chennakesava Cotton Company Vs State of A.Post dated cheque issued .Complaint against applicant quashed.82 lakhs .Dishonour of cheque .). averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.Company ..Condition modified and accused directed to deposit Rs.Accused convicted and sentenced to six months and fine of Rs. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 000/.2005 and has undergone more than 3 months of actual sentence Sentence of imprisonment reduced to period already undergone.Dishonour of cheque .P. 138-. (Santosh Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.Once the offence is committed. (Vishnu Bhat Vs Narayan R.Dismissal for non appearance of complainant when complaint was fixed for recording preliminary evidence Provision of S. Vs Home Secretary. 138-.).Legally enforceable debt Presumption is in favour of holder of cheque that it was issued to discharge debt or other liability .).Accused cannot escape his conviction . Vs State of Haryana & Anr. Department of Home Affairs..Complainant proved that accused issued the cheque to meet the liability of the company and firm whose Managing Director/partner he was .Dishonour of cheque .3 .Notice after dishonour of cheque issued from place `H' .Such plea not put forward to the complainant and it was taken as an afterthought .Accused acquitted. 138. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Bandekar & Ors. 147-. 1881.Kiran Bala & Anr.).Accused No.20.Dishonour of cheque ..Accused failed to prove that he stood as surety by issuing the said cheque .Refusal to accept has always been considered as good service. 147-.Dishonour of cheque . 138-..).) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S. & Ors.Dishonour of cheque . accused No. 147-. though in the matter of awarding of sentence. 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 146 (A.Termination of service of employee . 1881.P.In such a case power u/s 482 Cr.. (Karanam Visweswara Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.C. Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S. (M/s.P..Offence u/s 138 is compoundable without permission of Court.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 007 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (P&H) #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Conviction set aside. 1881. accused No.) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Liability of company where substantive sentence is provided .1 Managing Director of company.Dishonour of cheque .K.).Dishonour of cheque .Jurisdiction . 1881. it may have some effect on the Court trying the offence. Vs Home Secretary.Allowed . comes into play only when the summons have been issued on a complaint for the appearance of the accused . 1881.256 Cr.P.Compounding of offence . (Sabu George & etc.Proceedings cannot be quashed.). New Delhi & Anr. Court at place `H' has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the lis between the parties.P.A.Accused directed to pay compensation of Rs.Bandekar & Ors.) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. can be invoked after disposal of revision notwithstanding the bar u/s 362 Cr.Desai & Co.C. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 814 (RAJASTHAN) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881. any payment made subsequent thereof. 141-.Payment after commission of offence .C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 038 (A.). 138-.).Refusal . and partner of firm. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 059 (P&H) . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 052 (BOMBAY) #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). (Vishnu Bhat Vs Narayan R. (Sabu George & etc.C. 000/. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 208 (P&H) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. (Vishnu Bhat Vs Narayan R. 1881.Held..C. (Surindera Rani Vs Smt.C.Plea that cheque was stolen and misused can only be proved during trial .Parties compounding offence during revision .A company can be proceeded against in a criminal proceeding even where imposition of substantive sentence is provided for. (Danvanti Mutual Benefits Ltd.Compounding of offence after verdict of conviction and sentence becomes final .Bandekar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. Department of Home Affairs.2. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s. New Delhi & Anr.Notice .. 1881.. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 052 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.P.Complaint . will not absolve the accused of the liability of the criminal offence. 1881. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 052 (BOMBAY) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.to the complainant and in default to undergo SI for 3 months. 138.).Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.C.It is not applicable at the preliminary stage when only the complaint has been filed and the preliminary evidence is yet to be recorded.. 138.P. 138.In such a case High Court can exercise its power u/s 482 Cr. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. as also under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution .. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.Matter to be finally adjudicated upon on appreciation of evidence to be led by the parties . (M/s.A. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 059 (P&H) #11: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cause of action accrues only when notice is issued .Complaint .A.Dishonour of cheque . (Parmod Kumar Rath Vs M/s Aditya Steel Industries Ltd.. 1881.).. 1956 placed on record but there is nothing to show as to when the same was received by the Registrar of Companies or to show any receipt or proof that it was in fact submitted to the office of Registrar of Companies . Vs State of Punjab & Anr.).Dishonour of cheque . Vs State of Punjab & Anr. (Parmod Kumar Rath Vs M/s Aditya Steel Industries Ltd. (M/s.). 1881.Proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground.Dishonour of cheque .Cheque dishonoured for the reason 'sign jointly' .No ground to quash complaint.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.). 1881.Petitioners to lead evidence during trial to prove that they were not Directors of the Company at the relevant time . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 167 (A.Court in such cases should insist on presence of accused on dates on which appearance is necessary Personal appearance of accused not to be insisted.Desai & Co. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (ORISSA) #17: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s. 1881.Bezawada Motor Stores & Anr.Defence of not giving one month's notice prior to presenting the cheque in bank not legally tenable .). & Ors.Form No.). 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 099 (KERALA) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 072 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 063 (DELHI) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act can be disposed of mostly on the basis of documents and other evidence . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (BOMBAY) #16: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Prafulla Maheshwari & Ors.No case made out to quash proceedings .Evidence on record that at the time of dishonour of cheque there were not sufficient funds in the account ..Order taking cognizance suffers no infirmity or illegality . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 059 (P&H) #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Order of acquittal set aside .Dishonour of cheque . 1881.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act there is no distinction between an ordinary cheque and a cheque with an endorsement 'Not negotiable' . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (ORISSA) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT .Prima facie ingredients of offence u/s 138 of the Act satisfied . Vs Smt.. 138-.138 of the Act . (Nutan Damodar Prabhu & Anr.Cheques payable at place `P' where complainant permanently resides ..Limitation ..Enforceability of the debt is not to be tested on touchstone of the procedure provided by the parties in an agreement . & Ors. Vs Ravindra Vassant Kenkre & Anr.#9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 138-.Plea of petitioners that they were not Directors at the time when cheque was issued .'Not negotiable' .K.In such a case presence of accused on all dates is not necessary and Court should only insist on presence of accused on the dates on which appearance of the accused in Court is necessary for effectual adjudication.Dishonour of cheque .P. 138-.Petition dismissed.Debtor should seek the creditor and pay the debt to him at the place where he resides .Summoning order Quashing of . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 010 (BOMBAY) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.As per agreement of parties one month's notice was required to be given prior to presenting the cheque in bank Notice not given .32 under the Companies Act.Plea that amount was disputed and that by practising fraud and dishonesty complainant presented the cheque to be proved during trial .Desai & Co. 138-. 1881.Exemption of personal appearance of accused . it is the Court at place `P' which has jurisdiction to try the complaint.Dishonour of cheque .Jurisdiction .Quashing of Complaint against company and its Directors .K.Loan .).) #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.. (Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala).Accused convicted.Cheque can be presented any number of times within its period of validity and on each dishonour of cheque a fresh right is created .By an order of court bank was not to make any payment from out of accounts of company . 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Once it is so it comes within the mischief of S..Dishonour of cheque .Once cause of action accrues then complaint has to be filed within period of limitation. 138-.An employee of the company who issued cheques on behalf of the company cannot be made liable u/s 138 of the Act. 138-.Held.Sarala Doulat Ram & Anr. (Shyam Gopal Gupta Vs Sanjeev Bhargava).As per provision of S.. 1881. 138-.Account could be operated by anyone .Dishonour of cheque .S.Bandeep Kaur Vs S.Mayawala & Anr.Husband issued cheque drawn to joint bank account to discharge his liability .Held..Quashing of Existence of debt or any other liability.Dishonour of Cheque .Conviction .Can be ordered only when it is necessary or desirable for the purposes of the trial. Karnataka & Ors. (c) Issuance of demand notice by the Payee and its receipt by the drawer.Loan . 1881.. (b) Dishonour of cheque and intimation thereto by the concerned bank in writing. (Skyline Aquatech Exports Ltd.Held. 1881. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (G.Accused No...). 1881. (Smt.).Bandeep Kaur Vs S. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 149 (BOMBAY) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-..Jagadish).138 of the Act.Dishonour of cheque . Vs Subhash Bhimrao Gavsane & Anr.Delay in filing complaint .. 1881.Joint account .Dishonour of cheque . 147-.Dishonour of cheque . any settlement arrived at.Held..Avneet Singh).Amount of cheque and damages paid .Dishonour of cheque . Vs Om Prakash Mittal).Complaint . (Smt.Documents required to be produced are not at all relevant for deciding the controversy between the parties .).Negotiable Instruments Act.Wife neither having dealings with the petitioner nor drawer of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (P&H) #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cognizance wrongly taken . (d) Failure of the drawer to pay the cheque amount within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice and (e) The existence of debt or other legally enforceable liability against which the cheque was drawn . (Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Nagari Gramin Sahakari Pathsanstha & Anr.Petition dismissed. 1881.1 & 2 therefore liable to be prosecuted.. 138.Avneet Singh). 1881.Accused discharged. it is for the accused to prove that he had made payment in cash .Dishonour of cheque .. the person who is drawer of the cheque can only be prosecuted and not the other except the contingencies mentioned u/s 141 of the Act.P.Dishonour of cheque ..). Goa).Joint account of husband and wife . (Gurmeet Singh Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.Production of account books .When authority is granted by a litigant in favour of Advocate which empowers the latter to enter into a settlement.Rajeshwari Vs H.Issue of process .Non signatory of the cheque is not liable for the offence committed u/s 138 of N.Repayment in cash without any receipt . 138. 138.No case made out to invoke jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr. that revalidation of cheques by change of dates is not unknown in commercial transactions . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (P&H) #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.If complainant makes prima facie averments in complaint such as : (a) Drawing of a cheque in favour of the complainant and the cheque having been signed with a specific amount. Vs Om Prakash Mittal). 138-. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 149 (BOMBAY) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Under S.All these issues can only be decided after parties adduce evidence .Parties compromised during pendency of revision .. 138-. 1881.3 changed the dates of cheque and signed the same Previously cheque was signed by two signatories on behalf of the company and later on after revalidation of dates it was signed by one of the Directors who was also one of the authorized signatory who had earlier signed the cheques . 1881.Accused Nos.Cheques returned for revalidation of dates .I.Dishonour of cheque . Vs Sachima Agro Industries Pvt.Compounding of offence by Advocate .Court has no choice but to issue process order on recording verification of the complainant. Vs Subhash Bhimrao Gavsane & Anr.S. 147-.Production of account books . 1881. 138.Conviction and sentence set aside. 138-. 2008(2) APEX COURT . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (BOMBAY) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 158 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 221 (DELHI) #24: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 158 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 221 (DELHI) #25: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Act ..N. wife is not liable Proceedings against wife quashed.Mayawala & Anr. on behalf of a party to a lis is binding on the parties. 1881. (R.Ltd. 142(b)-. (Sahakar Maharshi Shankarrao Mohite Patil Nagari Gramin Sahakari Pathsanstha & Anr. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr. loss of cheque and complaint to the bank and police station and denying the liability of the cheque amount . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 075 (P&H) #21: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (G. JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Death of complainant during pendency of complaint - Son came forward to continue the proceedings - He is competent to conduct the proceedings initiated by the deceased father - Dismissal of petition on death of complainant set aside and son allowed to continue the proceedings. (Gene Vs Gabriel), 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (MADRAS) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 172 (MADRAS) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Material alteration - Blank cheques issued and later they were filled - Fact that column relating to payee filled up later but the same does not amount to material alteration. (Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad Vs M/s Chaithanyakala Samithi, President & Secretary & Ors.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (A.P.) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan account number mentioned as against the payee in the cheque - Amount to be adjusted from current account to loan account - It is an in-house transaction - Only inference to be drawn is that payee is the complainant bank only. (Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad Vs M/s Chaithanyakala Samithi, President & Secretary & Ors.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (A.P.) #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Loan account number mentioned as against the payee in the cheque - Amount to be adjusted from current account to loan account - It is an in-house transaction - Cheque return memo is conclusive proof to show that cheques were presented for payment - Acquittal could not be sustained. (Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd., Hyderabad Vs M/s Chaithanyakala Samithi, President & Secretary & Ors.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (A.P.) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Computers taken on rent Blank cheques given - Destruction of computers by accidental fire - Dishonour of cheque - No averment that it was due to negligence of accused - Accused is not liable u/s 138 of the Act Bailee in absence of any special contract is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken care of it. (Pyramid Finance Ltd. Vs Ramkrishna Iyer), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (BOMBAY) #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred debt - Cheque issued to pay the time barred debt - It revalidates the debt - By not making the cheque payment inspite of demand, accused commits an offence. (V.Satyanarayana Raju Vs G.B.Gangadhara Reddy & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (A.P.) #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Sent through registered post at correct address - Received back with postal endorsement 'Addressee not present at time of delivery' - It is due service. (V.Satyanarayana Raju Vs G.B.Gangadhara Reddy & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (A.P.) #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint dismissed on lack of proper authorisation to file complaint - Finding given that it was a legally enforceable debt - Appeal against - Accused is entitled to assail finding in absence of any appeal or revision filed by him - Finding as to legally enforceable debt upheld - Finding on proper authorisation to file complaint not sustainable - Accused convicted. (Surana Securities Ltd. Vs G.Kamalakar & Anr.), 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 616 (A.P.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A.P.) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Conviction - Sentence of fine and compensation - Both cannot be imposed at a time - Matter remanded for imposing effective sentence. (Nathuram Sharma Vs Rajendra Goyal), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 261 (P&H) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compounding of offence - Table appended to S.320 Cr.P.C. is not attracted as provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of IPC and none other. (R.Rajeshwari Vs H.N.Jagadish), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.C.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- Proviso - Dishonour of cheque - Company Directors - No categorical averment either in complaint or in the statement on oath that accused Nos.5 & 6 were incharge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of business of company at the time, the offence was committed - One of the accused was a nominee director and enjoyed the immunity provided by S.27(3) of State Financial Corporations Act - Held, that second proviso to S.141 of the Act was only clarificatory in nature and clarified what S.27 of SFCA provided - Accused Nos.5 & 6 discharged. (Skyline Aquatech Exports Ltd., Karnataka & Ors. Vs Sachima Agro Industries Pvt.Ltd., Goa), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (BOMBAY) #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - It is not necessary that in the complaint the words u/s 141 of the Act should be verbatim quoted - The purpose would be served if the averments, by whatever words used, makes it clear that the person was in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #15: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Complaint filed by authorised representative of the company - Held, that when complaint is filed in the name of a incorporeal person it is necessary that natural person represents such juristic person in a Court - The company being a juristic person shall be dejure complainant, while the person representing the company will be the defacto complainant - This does not and cannot change the complexion of the case because the complaint filed before the Court will be by a company Complaint could be filed u/s 138 of the Act by the authorised representative of the company. (Rajendra Agarwal Vs M/s Xpro India Limited, Biax Division & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 651 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 125 (CALCUTTA) #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Delay of 10 days in filing complaint - Application for condonation of delay not filed - Magistrate took cognizance and issued process - Order taking cognizance and issuing process set aside - Case remanded Magistrate directed to give an opportunity to complainant to file a petition to condone the delay and the same be decided after giving notice to accused and giving him an opportunity of hearing. (Nataraj @ T.Natarajan Vs P.Venkatachalam), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 349 (MADRAS) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal in default Appellant not disclosed the nature of domestic work which detained the appellant from appearing in the Court - Nor the appellant disclosed where he had gone - In absence of any such averment made in the exemption application, the court could not exercise the discretion of granting exemption. (Delhi Finance Company Vs Renu Aggarwal), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 366 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 437 (DELHI) #18: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director Petitioner resigned as Director of company - Petitioner placed on record photocopy of Form No.32 - Held, that it is a document which the company is required to furnish before the Registrar of Companies in terms of S.303(2) of the Companies Act - This document is not a public document in terms of S.74 Evidence Act - Such document even issued by public authority in terms of S.76 of the Act does not fall within the category of 'Conclusive Proof' as defined u/s 4 Evidence Act - Such a document falls within the category of 'shall presume' - The fact whether petitioner resigned from the company before issuance of cheque still remains in the category of disputed fact which is required to be proved or disproved at the stage of trial - Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. (Budhmal Bhansali @ B.Bhansali Vs The State & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 573 (CALCUTTA) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Accused sentenced to RI for six months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default sentence - Cheque amount Rs.2, 37, 000/- - Sentence modified - Accused directed to pay double the amount of cheque as compensation to the complainant and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with default sentence. (K.Vijayan Vs Appukutti), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 412 (MADRAS) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 407 (MADRAS) #20: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued in favour of `Self' - Cheque issued by accused to complainant for liability of debt due on him - Cheque shows that it was bearer also as the words `or bearer' not cut by accused - Respondent became holder of cheque in due course - Contention that cheque was not drawn for any specific person and as such provision of S.138 of the Act not applicable cannot be sustained . (Babu Lal Vs Kewal Chand), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 432 (M.P.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 608 (M.P.) #21: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Limitation - Drawer of cheque to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice - Period is to be reckoned from date of first notice - It is a matter of evidence as to when first notice is deemed to have been given i.e. whether the one given by registered post or the one served personally - It is also a matter of evidence whether postman went to deliver registered notice or whether he left information that notice can be collected - Averments of the petitioner cannot be decided without evidence Petition dismissed. (Rajendra Prasad Gupta & Anr. Vs State of U.P. & Anr), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (ALLAHABAD) #22: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued by Company - Summoning order - Challenged on the ground that it is not averred in the complaint as to in what manner accused was responsible for the conduct of business of the company Also no specific overt act attributed to petitioner regarding his involvement in the commission of alleged offence - Prosecution evidence already closed and case fixed for defence evidence Proper course was to allow the proceeding to go on to come to its logical conclusion, one way or the other - Court declined to interfere in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. (Sona P.Walvekar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (CALCUTTA) #23: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Compensation - Dishonour of 3 cheques of Rs.25, 000/- each - Conviction - Accused sentenced to undergo 2 months RI and a fine of Rs.5, 000/- imposed with default sentence - Order modified - Accused directed to pay compensation twice the amount of cheque to the complainant. (K.Deenadayalan Vs A.K.Sumathi), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 487 (MADRAS) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 654 (MADRAS) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cheque dishonoured and in lieu thereof second cheque issued - Cheque number of second cheque not mentioned in notice - Held, it cannot be said that notice is not valid. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Demand of double of the amount - Notice if does not specify the amount in terms of the cheque, the same does not satisfy the legal requirement - Complaint dismissed - Order upheld. (Gurnam Singh Vs Prabh Dayal Saini), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 286 (P&H) #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Filed within two days of refusal to receive notice - Complaint is premature. (M/s. Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (S.C.) #2: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Additional accused - Averments unspecific and general - No particular role assigned to petitioner Summoning order concerning petitioner quashed - However, trial Court will be at liberty to exercise its power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. to summon an additional accused at a later stage. (Dev Sareen Vs DCM Financial Ltd.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 658 (DELHI) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque Consideration - Presumption - Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #4: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures alleged to be forged - Application for production of bills and challans by complainant - Dismissal of application - Order not proper - However, order not interfered with in revision as accused participated in trial and cross examined all witnesses - Accused examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. and matter reached final argument stage - At that stage no interference warranted. (Murari Mohan Kejriwal Vs Sharawan Kumar Kejriwal), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 558 (CALCUTTA) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 20-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused moved an application for sending the cheque to handwriting expert - Held, that S.20 of the Act confers only a prima facie right, that too conditional upon the holder of a negotiable instrument Adducing evidence in support of defence is a valuable right - Allowed. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Sending the cheque to handwriting expert - Defence evidence - Accused should be given opportunity to bring his evidence on record in defence - He should be given assistance of Court with regard to summoning of witnesses etc. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused alleging misuse of cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #8: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney holder - Held, complaint can be filed by payee through power of attorney holder and there is no necessity for the complainant to file the complaint in person. (Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 844 (RAJASTHAN) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint in default before taking cognizance but after hearing arguments for taking cognizance Restoration application filed within 13 days - Complaint restored. (Kailash Chand Agarwal Vs State & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 750 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 883 (RAJASTHAN) #10: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Dismissal of complaint in default - Complainant appeared in Court in later part of the day - Held, dismissal of complaint was erroneous - Order of dismissal set aside. (Hind Syntex Ltd. Vs M/s Shree Mangal & Ors.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 6 (M.P.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 130 (M.P.) #11: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice - Received back unclaimed - In case of unclaimed notice the deemed service of notice is to be reckoned from the date of postal endorsement and not from the date the undelivered notice is received back by the sender. (Ashwani Kumar Julka Vs Lt.Col.Parthojit Choudhary (Retd.)), 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 513 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 11 (DELHI) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - 'Accused are Directors and Executive of the Company' - Meaning - When Director is also executive, he is an officer with executive powers, charged with administrative work and is a person with senior managerial responsibility in the business - No fault can be found in the complaint. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Service of notice by hand delivery - Refusal - Presumption of service cannot be raised as the same is not effected in terms of the statute. (M/s. Sarav Investment & Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (S.C.) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharge of liability Cheque issued for settlement of trade liabilities - Forms valid consideration - Dishonour of cheque justifies penal action u/s 138 of the Act. (Sree Sakthi Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Anjaneya Enterprises), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (KERALA) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partnership firm Partner - Liability - There must be a specific allegations and averments regarding the role played by such a partner - Bald allegation that such a partner took active part in the day-to-day business affairs of the firm without any material in support thereof is not sufficient - Complaint against petitioner quashed. (P.Snehalatha Vs M/s Victory Leathers), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 50 (MADRAS) #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Account closed Complaint is maintainable. (A.K.Chaudhary & Ors. Vs Nandita Malhotra), 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 593 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (DELHI) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Receipt of information from Bank - It can be in any language and through any mode - written, electronic, fax or even verbal. (A.K.Chaudhary & Ors. Vs Nandita Malhotra), 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 593 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (DELHI) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to pay liability of brother - Cheque dishonoured - No legally enforceable debt or other liability Complaint quashed. (Subburam Vs Raja Guru), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 97 (MADRAS) #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Complaint against company and its Directors - Directors signing the cheque - They cannot escape their liability on the ground that they resigned after signing the cheque but before the cheques were deposited in the bank. (M/s.Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s.Rama Vision Limited), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 103 (DELHI) #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Company - Dishonour of cheque - Company Secretary filing complaint on behalf of company - Specific authorisation for filing each case is not required when there is general authorisation to an officer of the Board of Directors. (M/s.Sumida International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs M/s.Rama Vision Limited), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 103 (DELHI) #21: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Nothing in complaint to show that accused Nos.1 & 2 were responsible for conduct of business of the company at relevant time and nothing to show that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired with or abetted accused Nos.3 & 4 in respect of alleged offence - Proceedings against accused Nos.1 & 2 quashed. (T.R.Gupta & Anr. Vs M/s Vascon), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (GAUHATI) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cheque issued for part payment of outstanding bills - Cheque dishonoured - By issuing notice demand made of payment of pending bills and not cheque amount - Held, notice is not valid. (M/s.Rahul Builders Vs M/s.Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (S.C.) #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - An omnibus notice without specifying as to what was the amount due under the dishonoured cheque does not subserve the requirement of law. (M/s.Rahul Builders Vs M/s.Arihant Fertilizers & Chemical & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (S.C.) #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Pendency of civil suit for recovery of cheque amount - Not a bar for proceeding u/s 138 of the Act - Provision of S.138 of the Act is an additional criminal remedy over and above the civil remedy available. (Sree Sakthi Paper Mills Ltd. Vs Anjaneya Enterprises), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (KERALA) #25: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued - Cheque again presented and again dishonoured - Notice again issued - Complaint filed on the basis of second notice - Held, cause of action to file complaint accrues only once - Complaint should have been filed after issuance of the first notice - Complaint on the basis of second notice is beyond the period of limitation - Complaint quashed. (Umesh Tandon & Ors. Vs Indian Technological Products), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (DELHI) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Advocate - Money lending - Absence of pleading that accused is not legally liable to pay the amount - On the other hand it is pleaded that the transaction itself was void being in violation of the Money Lenders Act - Held, the matter can be taken in defence - Plea does not appear to be sound - The circumstance that the complainant is an Advocate and that he had lent some amounts to the accused, itself would not lead to an inference that the agreement was hit by unlawful consideration or that he was indulging in money lending business. (Meenu Bhist Vs Vijay Kumar Gupta & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (DELHI) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Delay Condonation - Delay of thirteen months - Reason stated negotiations were going on - Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.one lakh - Stake quite heavy - Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the matter in the presence of ExPresident of Kammavar Sangam - Delay condoned. (S.Rajaram Vs S.Seenivasan), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - A duly authorised power of attorney can file complaint on behalf of the payee or holder-in-due-course - So long as power of attorney does not seek to conduct prosecution on behalf of payee or holder in due course, question of seeking permission in that behalf u/s 302 Cr.P.C. or the question as to who should seek such permission do not arise. (Ashalatha Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 274 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney can file the complaint on behalf of payee or holder-in-due-course. (Ashalatha Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 274 (KERALA) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Power of attorney can give evidence in Court on behalf of payee or holder-in-due-course, if facts necessary to secure conviction are within his personal knowledge. (Ashalatha Vs State of Kerala), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 274 (KERALA) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of Cheque - Signature on cheque denied from the very beginning - Comparison of signatures - Comparison of signatures by Bank Manager - Bank Manager though by practice is experienced to compare the signatures but be cannot be said to be handwriting expert with necessary expertise - Cheque referred to document expert for comparison of disputed signatures at the cost of accused and in case it is found that signatures on cheque are not that of accused then charges of expert to be borne by complainant. (Saheb Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 231 (BOMBAY) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 147-- - Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Direction to pay double the amount of cheque as compensation - Appellate Court maintained conviction but amount of compensation reduced - During pendency of revision in High Court parties compromised and payment made towards full and final settlement of dues - Held, offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable and there is no reason to refuse compromise between parties Order of conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted of the charge against him. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 141-- - Dishonour of cheque - Company - Director's Time barred debt . (Som Nath Vs State of Punjab & Anr.R.Complainant once again cross examined and he once again denied his signature on the receipt . 141-. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (A. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 'Deemed liable'. consent or supervision for the reasons by virtue of the designation of his office .In rebuttal complainant filed an affidavit that he never issued such receipt and it does not bear his signature and it is forged .It is not so in case of Directors .Company . 1881. 1881. 1881.Repayment alleged Receipt produced in defence evidence . 138-. 1881.If holder of cheque fills up date and amount by words and figures then it does not amount to any offence . rejection of application by Appellate Court.P.Court at Delhi has jurisdiction to try the complaint.After conviction accused filed an application for having such receipt examined by handwriting expert .Dishonour of cheque . (Sarla Jain Vs Central Bank of India).Liability .Stop payment . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 409 (P&H) #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It is not a case of forgery an fabrication.Dishonour of cheque .Complainant has to specifically show as to how and in what manner the accused alleged director was responsible for the conduct of business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its function . (Ashok Newatia Vs State & Anr.Proceedings against petitioner quashed. 1881.M. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (KERALA) #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complainant can proceed against some of the Directors.). 138-. (Chinthala Cheruvu & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (DELHI) #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 66 (DELHI) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Blank cheque . 138-. 138.).).Dishonour of cheque .Company . (Baby Thomas Vs Paul).Every request to forward cheque to expert need not be blindly granted..).responsibility .Drawer's bank in Bareilly .Partnership firm Complaint by Managing Partner of a firm in respect of a cheque issued in favour of firm is maintianble.In case of Managing Director a presumption arises that the offence is committed with his active knowledge. 138-. held. 1881. (Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Vs Brahm Prakash Sharma).Cheque presented in Delhi and dishonoured .Directors .Dishonour of cheque .Sent through . 138-.Nizmathullah Vs Vaduganathan). 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 412 (DELHI) #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sufficient money to honour the cheque was not in the account .An implied authority is given to the holder of cheque to fill up the columns therein when a blank cheque duly signed is given .. (Meenu Bhist Vs Vijay Kumar Gupta & Anr.Accused is liable under the Act. 138.. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 190 (BOMBAY) #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 346 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 494 (KERALA) #11: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.In absence of taking steps despite having opportunity during trial and object being to fill up lacuna.To fasten liability on a Director it has to be proved that the person named as the Director was responsible to the company and was in charge of the affairs of the Company pertaining to the conduct of the business of the company. 1881..Managing Director and Director . 138-.Sleeping Director .. proper.Territorial jurisdiction Cheque drawn in Philibhit . 141-.). (Meenu Bhist Vs Vijay Kumar Gupta & Anr. 1881..) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 391 (A.Dishonour of cheque .Not a ground to quash proceedings as it is a matter of evidence.Has the character of legally enforceable debt. 1881..Company .Allegations bald and general in nature .Dishonour of cheque . 138-.. (Nasar Vs State of Kerala).. 138. (Mamatadevi Vs Vijay Kumar Mamraj Agrawal). 141-.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 490 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 558 (MADRAS) #15: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.P. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (DELHI) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque issued to pay time barred debt .. (A.. Plea of accused that blank cheque as security was given and even after repayment of loan cheque was misused . 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.No merit in contention that blank cheque was given .Cheque amount 4 lakhs . 138-.). where liability is fastened on the shoulders of a Director.Cheque presented again . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 442 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. would be to aver that the person concerned was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (H.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 442 (DELHI) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Has to be understood as execution .Stop payment Cheque dishonoured . 1881. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.).Sentence . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 430 (MADRAS) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. complaint not maintainable.Notice received back with postal endorsement 'Unclaimed' .Banker's cheque Account attached by Income Tax Department .. 1881.No offence is made out . 141-.Accused admitted in his cross examination that cheque was given to repay the debt .)..Springer India Pvt.Issuance of Bankers cheque being the result of an oversight or negligence . 1881. (P.Accused sentenced to two years imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs. Vs State & Anr..C.Dishonour of cheque .C. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Ramakrishnan Vs P. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 409 (P&H) #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Sentence reduced to one year imprisonment but order of compensation upheld.Request to send cheque to handwriting expert for comparison of signatures .On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered . 1881.. Ltd. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #2: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Sarla Jain Vs Central Bank of India). 1881. Vs Anilesh).An essential ingredient of an actionable complaint. (Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. 138-.Khandelwal & Ors.It is not necessary to insist on personal appearance of complainant invariably in all cases when complaint is presented.Dishonour of cheque .Putting signature on the blank cheque is not equivalent to the word `drawn' .R. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese).Dishonour of cheque .Stand of petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company . 138. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt. 138-. & Ors.Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender Proceedings quashed against petitioners.Complaint quashed. Vs State & Anr.Company .Tort of negligence is not ingredient of an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 482 (P&H) #25: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Proceedings quashed. Ltd. Mittal Cotton Ginning & Processing Factory). Vs State of West Bengal & Anr. 138-. Vs M/s.. 138-.. 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (DELHI) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. & Ors.Signatures on cheque disputed . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA) #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . Vs M/s.registered post .Laxmi Tiwari). 138-.. (Standard Chartered Bank & Anr.Compounding of offence Complainant received the amount involved in the cheque .No ground to interference in concurrent finding of conviction. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (KERALA) : . 1881. presumption is of due notice.Collecting bank returned cheque noticing defacement and it was never presented to drawer's bank .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Cheque shall be deemed to be presented only once .Laxmi Tiwari). 141-.Notice .Notice not served within statutory period when cheque was first dishonoured . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint having no objection for quashing the proceedings . 138-.). 138. (J.Director Liability ..Blank cheque theory `Drawn' . (Shroff Publisher & Distributors Pvt. (Som Nath Vs State of Punjab & Anr.).F.Dishonour of cheque .Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd...Complaint .Held. 138-.Held.Word `Drawn' in the provision has to be understood as `execution' of cheque.Request cannot be declined on ground of delay.Govindarajan).5 lakhs . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Bankers cheque issued inspite of account attached by Income Tax Department . 1881. 138-.Company . (M/s..D.Offence u/s 138 of the Act is not made out . Held.Held.Order counting one month from date of service of notice and thereby holding that complaint was barred by limitation.C. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (MADRAS) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Cheque dishonoured thereafter .Written compromise also filed . (Michel Anthony Vs P.).When execution itself is not proved.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . there is valid service of notice and accused evaded to receive notice. whether accused gave the cheque for discharge of such debt and whether there was any material alteration in the cheque are the questions to be considered during the course of trial .Dismissal of application . (Sri Brajabandhu Mohapatra Vs Sri Sasanka Sekhar Senapati)..). (J. 138-.Reasons not assigned .P. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.S.. 138.Notice . 1881.Managing Director negotiated loan .Quashing of complaint Whether there is any enforceable debt. 1881. 138-.Company . 138-..Limitation .Chandrasekara).Returned with endorsement `there was no such addressee' . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.S.Patiala Auto Enterprises etc..It was he who had taken responsibility to accept loan..In the instant case signatures on cheque admitted However.Accused did not chose to enter into the witness box When questioned u/s 313 Cr.Exemption from personal appearance .Mere proof of signature on cheque is not proof of its execution . 1881. (Ratilal Manjibhai Patel Vs Crown Industries & Anr. held. 138. who has written the amount and date on cheque and in whose hand writing the cheque was written . presumption u/s 139 of the Act is not available .Presumption . (Sadguru Sales Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr.. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 294 (A.Possession of cheque by the complainant similarly goes a long way to prove issue of cheque . 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (P&H) : . 138-.Dishonour of cheque .P.Impugned order set aside .Managing Director resigned . complaint not proving as to when cheque was given.P. (Maganti Ganta Avadhani Vs Kopuri Sreenivasa Rao). it cannot be said that the cheque was drawn by the accused as contemplated by S. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (ORISSA) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Dishonour of cheque . 138-.P. 138-.Simply because the cheque contained the signature of the accused.Court while passing an order is required to assign reasons for the conclusions arrived at .Accused acquitted.Execution and issue of cheque has to be proved to draw the presumption . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 633 (BOMBAY) #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Issue as to whether the first notice was served or sought to be served by the postman on the accused has to be decided on the basis of evidence and postman concerned has to step in the witness box Process issued cannot be recalled. 138-. 1881. not proper.Dishonour of cheque .Admission of signatures on cheque goes a long way to prove due execution .Sandhu Vs M/s.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint not to be quashed on these grounds.. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 500 (BOMBAY) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..138 of the Act. 141-.Quashing of complaint Sought on ground that complaint not filed within time on the basis of first notice .2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 245 (KERALA) #7: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.To file complaint limitation starts to run from the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and not from the date of service of notice .Dishonour of cheque . (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese). 1881. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese).Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned . 147-.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Conviction set aside . accused did not say that notice was not served as per law or notice was returned with false endorsement with the connivance of the complainant .In the absence of any positive evidence regarding the execution of the cheque by accused. it cannot be said that complainant has discharged the burden of proving its execution.Complaint . (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.Compromise during pendency of appeal . 1881..Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan .). it is to be held that the accused had issued only blank cheque and the same was not executed by him .) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Court to decide application afresh. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 034 (A.Address mentioned on postal cover not disputed Summons served at the same address . Cognizance of complaint can be taken before recording statement of complainant.Notice not given to company . 1881.Complaint . 138-.2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Misuser of blank cheque . (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.. 138-.No document produced in support of loan amount . (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. 1881. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.First Proviso (a) . 138-.4 lacs . 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint by a Govt. 138-. held.Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration .Company Prosecution of authorised signatory . 138. (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt.C. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes). (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes). this in itself is insufficient to displace the presumption available to the complainant.Failure of accused to rebut the presumption . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.. 1881. guilty u/s 138 of the Act. 139. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice . 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S. 138-. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 728 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (MADRAS) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is meant for honest drawer and not to protect the unscrupulous drawers.Consideration Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration .. 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY) #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr. 118-. 138-.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S. company . 1881. 1881. 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.Defence with regard to service of notice not raised in trial Court ..Dishonour of cheque .Date of taking cognizance has no relevance in a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act.. 1881.. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes). 141-.Exemption . 1881.Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted.).Court is not bound to .Accused evaded service of notice .Such a plea is not available in revision .Dishonour of cheque .200 1st Proviso (a) complaint should have been filed not only by a public servant who is acting in discharge of his official duties but also his official duties must include preferring complaints in accordance with provisions of law by which he is empowered to file complaints.).Dishonour of cheque . and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business .Process issued against accused quashed.Accused.Dishonour of cheque .For applicability of S.Proviso to S. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Chinnasamy Vs C.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Examination of complainant on oath . and (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds. 138-.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Blank cheque .). (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (K.Reply to statutory notice not given . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.Duraisamy).Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .C.Three ingredients of the provision are : (i) that there is a legally enforceable debt.C. 138. 139.`Stop instructions' not issued to bank Unusual conduct of accused .Hegde)..Loan of Rs..Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who was incharge of.Dishonour of cheque . Blank cheque theory `Drawn' .Laxmi Tiwari).Held. 138-. 138-.C. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA) #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Court while passing an order is required to assign reasons for the conclusions arrived at . (H. 1881.Laxmi Tiwari). not proper. held. Ltd.Plea of accused that blank cheque as security was given and even after repayment of loan cheque was misused .Dishonour of cheque .Address mentioned on postal cover not disputed Summons served at the same address .Dishonour of cheque . 1881. accused did not say that notice was not served as per law or notice was returned with false endorsement with the connivance of the complainant . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . there is valid service of notice and accused evaded to receive notice.Dishonour of cheque .However.Collecting bank returned cheque noticing defacement and it was never presented to drawer's bank . Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion.Putting signature on the blank cheque is not equivalent to the word `drawn' .Notice . Ltd. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese). 1881.).Dishonour of cheque . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #2: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (MADRAS) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Impugned order set aside . complaint not maintainable. 1881. & Ors.Order counting one month from date of service of notice and thereby holding that complaint was barred by limitation. 138-.S. 1881. (Michel Anthony Vs P. (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.C.Has to be understood as execution .Dishonour of cheque .). Vs Anilesh).Notice .Complaint . (M/s. (Sri Brajabandhu Mohapatra Vs Sri Sasanka Sekhar Senapati).Stand of petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company . 1881.). 141-.. Vs M/s.. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (DELHI) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved.Written compromise also filed .Chandrasekara).Sentence reduced to one year imprisonment but order of compensation upheld.Court to decide application afresh.Springer India Pvt.... Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Held.Returned with endorsement `there was no such addressee' . 1881.Accused acquitted.Stop payment Cheque dishonoured .Limitation .To file complaint limitation starts to run from the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and not from the date of service of notice .Company .Conviction set aside .Word `Drawn' in the provision has to be understood as `execution' of cheque.Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender Proceedings quashed against petitioners.Accused did not chose to enter into the witness box When questioned u/s 313 Cr.Cheque shall be deemed to be presented only once . 138. 138.Exemption from personal appearance .adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute . (Shroff Publisher & Distributors Pvt.Complaint . & Ors. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (ORISSA) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Sadguru Sales Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1881.. 138-. 147-.No merit in contention that blank cheque was given .. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 245 (KERALA) #7: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.No ground to interference in concurrent finding of conviction.F.Accused sentenced to two years imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.Notice not served within statutory period when cheque was first dishonoured .Dishonour of cheque .Cheque amount 4 lakhs .Accused admitted in his cross examination that cheque was given to repay the debt .Cheque presented again .On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered .It is not necessary to insist on personal appearance of complainant invariably in all cases when complaint is presented.. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 633 (BOMBAY) .5 lakhs . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Compromise during pendency of appeal . 1881. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Dishonour of cheque .Reasons not assigned .Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd.Dismissal of application . 1881.Dishonour of cheque ..P. 138-. 138-. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese).). 138-. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.D.Sentence . 138-. (J.. 1881. (Ratilal Manjibhai Patel Vs Crown Industries & Anr. 138-. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. 138-.Cognizance of complaint can be taken before recording statement of complainant.Execution and issue of cheque has to be proved to draw the presumption . 138-.).) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 294 (A..Issue as to whether the first notice was served or sought to be served by the postman on the accused has to be decided on the basis of evidence and postman concerned has to step in the witness box Process issued cannot be recalled.Simply because the cheque contained the signature of the accused.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .For applicability of S.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint not to be quashed on these grounds.Process issued against accused quashed.Sandhu Vs M/s.. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese).Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned .. 1881.It was he who had taken responsibility to accept loan. it is to be held that the accused had issued only blank cheque and the same was not executed by him .Company . (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr.S.Notice not given to company .Dishonour of cheque .Quashing of complaint Sought on ground that complaint not filed within time on the basis of first notice .In the absence of any positive evidence regarding the execution of the cheque by accused.Patiala Auto Enterprises etc. and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business .Presumption . (Maganti Ganta Avadhani Vs Kopuri Sreenivasa Rao). 138. 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. it cannot be said that complainant has discharged the burden of proving its execution. 138-. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese). 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Mere proof of signature on cheque is not proof of its execution . 141-.). 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY) .P.Date of taking cognizance has no relevance in a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act. 138-.Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan .Company Prosecution of authorised signatory .First Proviso (a) .138 of the Act. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 034 (A. presumption u/s 139 of the Act is not available .In the instant case signatures on cheque admitted However.Examination of complainant on oath . (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd... 138.).#11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 500 (BOMBAY) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. complaint not proving as to when cheque was given. 141-. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Cheque dishonoured thereafter . company .When execution itself is not proved.P. 1881.Managing Director resigned .Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who was incharge of. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Quashing of complaint Whether there is any enforceable debt.200 1st Proviso (a) complaint should have been filed not only by a public servant who is acting in discharge of his official duties but also his official duties must include preferring complaints in accordance with provisions of law by which he is empowered to file complaints.Complaint . 1881.Complaint by a Govt.). whether accused gave the cheque for discharge of such debt and whether there was any material alteration in the cheque are the questions to be considered during the course of trial .P. 138-. it cannot be said that the cheque was drawn by the accused as contemplated by S..Held. 1881.Exemption . who has written the amount and date on cheque and in whose hand writing the cheque was written . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .).) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1881.Possession of cheque by the complainant similarly goes a long way to prove issue of cheque .Admission of signatures on cheque goes a long way to prove due execution .Dishonour of cheque . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (P&H) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Managing Director negotiated loan . Reply to statutory notice not given .Dishonour of cheque . 1881. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt. held.Dishonour of cheque .Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted.C. (M/s.#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes).Dishonour of cheque .Proviso to S. 1881.C. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Blank cheque theory `Drawn' . (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt. (K.C. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered . when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved..Failure of accused to rebut the presumption .Stand of petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company .Word `Drawn' in the provision has to be understood as `execution' of cheque. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese). 1881.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd. 118-. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA) #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Consideration Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration . 141-.. 138-. 138. Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion.No ground to interference in concurrent finding of conviction.Chinnasamy Vs C.Held. this in itself is insufficient to displace the presumption available to the complainant.Duraisamy).No document produced in support of loan amount .Loan of Rs. 138.Misuser of blank cheque . 1881.Defence with regard to service of notice not raised in trial Court . 1881.However.).138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is meant for honest drawer and not to protect the unscrupulous drawers.`Stop instructions' not issued to bank Unusual conduct of accused .Hegde).Accused.Sentence . 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender Proceedings quashed against petitioners. 138-. and (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds. & Ors.Plea of accused that blank cheque as security was given and even after repayment of loan cheque was misused . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138-..Company . 1881.. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #2: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.4 lacs . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 728 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (MADRAS) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Such a plea is not available in revision . 1881.Dishonour of cheque ..No merit in contention that blank cheque was given . 138-.5 lakhs .Blank cheque ..Laxmi Tiwari).Court is not bound to adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute . guilty u/s 138 of the Act. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes).Dishonour of cheque . 139. 138-. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.Putting signature on the blank cheque is not equivalent to the word `drawn' . 1881.Three ingredients of the provision are : (i) that there is a legally enforceable debt. 1881.Cheque amount 4 lakhs .Accused evaded service of notice .Notice .Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration .) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S. .Sentence reduced to one year imprisonment but order of compensation upheld. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Has to be understood as execution . 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese). (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.. 1881. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes).Accused sentenced to two years imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs. 139.Dishonour of cheque .Accused admitted in his cross examination that cheque was given to repay the debt . When execution itself is not proved. there is valid service of notice and accused evaded to receive notice.C. 138-. Ltd.C.D.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint .). 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (ORISSA) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.To file complaint limitation starts to run from the expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice and not from the date of service of notice .S.Admission of signatures on cheque goes a long way to prove due execution ... (Sri Brajabandhu Mohapatra Vs Sri Sasanka Sekhar Senapati)..Compromise during pendency of appeal .Dishonour of cheque .Possession of cheque by the complainant similarly goes a long way to prove issue of cheque .Exemption from personal appearance . Vs Anilesh).Issue as to whether the first notice was served or sought to be served by the postman on the accused has to be decided on the basis of evidence and postman concerned has to step in the witness box Process issued cannot be recalled.Springer India Pvt.Notice .Dismissal of application .Stop payment Cheque dishonoured .Dishonour of cheque . complaint not proving as to when cheque was given.). 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .Cheque presented again .It is not necessary to insist on personal appearance of complainant invariably in all cases when complaint is presented. 138-. 138-.Impugned order set aside . not proper.In the instant case signatures on cheque admitted However. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 500 (BOMBAY) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice not served within statutory period when cheque was first dishonoured . (Sadguru Sales Vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1881.Limitation .Execution and issue of cheque has to be proved to draw the presumption . (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese).138 of the Act.Dishonour of cheque . accused did not say that notice was not served as per law or notice was returned with false endorsement with the connivance of the complainant . 138. 138-.Laxmi Tiwari).P. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Ltd.Cheque shall be deemed to be presented only once .Dishonour of cheque .Mere proof of signature on cheque is not proof of its execution .Address mentioned on postal cover not disputed Summons served at the same address . held.Accused acquitted.Dishonour of cheque .. 1881.F.In the absence of any positive evidence regarding the execution of the cheque by accused. presumption u/s 139 of the Act is not available ..Held. (H.Dishonour of cheque .Held. (Shroff Publisher & Distributors Pvt.Court to decide application afresh. it is to be held that the accused had issued only blank cheque and the same was not executed by him . 138-. 1881. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.Written compromise also filed .). 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 245 (KERALA) #7: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (MADRAS) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Court while passing an order is required to assign reasons for the conclusions arrived at . 147-. who has written the amount and date on cheque and in whose hand writing the cheque was written .Collecting bank returned cheque noticing defacement and it was never presented to drawer's bank .... it cannot be said that complainant has discharged the burden of proving its execution.Quashing of complaint Sought on ground that complaint not filed within time on the basis of first notice .Returned with endorsement `there was no such addressee' .Presumption . 1881..Complaint . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 633 (BOMBAY) #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Michel Anthony Vs P. Vs M/s. & Ors. 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (DELHI) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Reasons not assigned .Simply because the cheque contained the signature of the accused. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) . 138-.(Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Held. complaint not maintainable. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese).Conviction set aside . 1881.Order counting one month from date of service of notice and thereby holding that complaint was barred by limitation. 1881. 1881.Chandrasekara). 138-.Accused did not chose to enter into the witness box When questioned u/s 313 Cr. 138-. (Ratilal Manjibhai Patel Vs Crown Industries & Anr. it cannot be said that the cheque was drawn by the accused as contemplated by S. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is meant for honest drawer and not to protect the unscrupulous drawers. 138. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (P&H) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability which presupposes a legally enforceable debt. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 034 (A. 1881.).C..Exemption .Notice not given to company .)...C. 138-. 1881. 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S. 138-. and (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds. 138-.Company Prosecution of authorised signatory .#14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 1881.Failure also on part of accused to prove . guilty u/s 138 of the Act.Reply to statutory notice not given .Managing Director resigned .Accused.) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It was he who had taken responsibility to accept loan. company .. 1881. 138-. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 728 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (MADRAS) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Consideration Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration . 1881.P.S.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.P.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S. 138-. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr. 138..Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned .) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.Defence with regard to service of notice not raised in trial Court .Dishonour of cheque ..Misuser of blank cheque .Blank cheque .Notice .First Proviso (a) . (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G. held.C.For applicability of S. 1881.Failure of accused to rebut the presumption .Complaint ..Company . and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business . 138-. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY) #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Date of taking cognizance has no relevance in a complaint u/s 138 of NI Act.Proviso to S. 1881. (K.Complaint not to be quashed on these grounds.Dishonour of cheque . 139.).Patiala Auto Enterprises etc.Dishonour of cheque .Quashing of complaint Whether there is any enforceable debt. (J.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Such a plea is not available in revision .200 1st Proviso (a) complaint should have been filed not only by a public servant who is acting in discharge of his official duties but also his official duties must include preferring complaints in accordance with provisions of law by which he is empowered to file complaints. (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.Process issued against accused quashed.). 1881.Accused evaded service of notice . (Maganti Ganta Avadhani Vs Kopuri Sreenivasa Rao).Three ingredients of the provision are : (i) that there is a legally enforceable debt.Duraisamy).Dishonour of cheque . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Chinnasamy Vs C.`Stop instructions' not issued to bank Unusual conduct of accused . 141-.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 294 (A. 138.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 1881.P. 118-.Hegde). 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (KERALA) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (KERALA) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who was incharge of.Complaint by a Govt.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL. 1881.Examination of complainant on oath ..Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan .Managing Director negotiated loan . whether accused gave the cheque for discharge of such debt and whether there was any material alteration in the cheque are the questions to be considered during the course of trial . (Rajan Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd.Sandhu Vs M/s.Cheque dishonoured thereafter . (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes).Cognizance of complaint can be taken before recording statement of complainant. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. this in itself is insufficient to displace the presumption available to the complainant.No ground to quash the proceedings. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 062 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 120 (ALLAHABAD) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881...that he did not get the consideration .C.Change in date .Accused liable to be punished u/s 138 of the Act.. 138-.Plea that goods were rejected and complainant was not entitled to get the cheque encashed . his general power of attorney holder. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 164 (S.). to continue the proceedings .Demand of loan amount and not demand for payment of cheque amount and further demand of damages on account of mental torture .Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1881. 1881. 138-.Court is not bound to adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute .). (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes).Dishonour of cheque . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). & Anr.Plea is available at the time of defence.However.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Appeal against .V.C.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 1881. (Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.In no way absolve statutory liability cast upon accused .Stop payment . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #1: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.Summary trial . (Vijay D. applies . (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes).Conviction . (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese). 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.Appeal/Revision cannot be dismissed for non deposit of amount of fine. 1881.Complaint . 138-.Dishonour of cheque . (Vinay Kumar Vs State of U. 1881.During pendency of complaint Court allowed the son of complainant.Complaint .Magistrate has no option but to acquit accused unless he chooses to adjourn the proceeding to some other date.Notice . & Anr. (M/s V. when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved.Narayanan).Summoning order cannot be quashed on this ground .Enterprises & Anr. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 917 (P&H) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (P&H) #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted. 138-. 138-.Loan of Rs.Accused acquitted Complainant had right to file special leave to appeal to High Court u/s 378(4) .Dishonour of cheque .).4 lacs .) .Non appearance of complainant on date fixed for appearance of accused . 1881.No appeal filed Revision is not maintainable before Sessions Judge.Demand not in accordance with requirement of the provision of S.P.138 of the Act .. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 062 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 120 (ALLAHABAD) #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act... (Bodapati Naga Krishna Gandhi Vs Sri Ilapakurthi Sri Ramulu & Anr.P. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (DELHI) #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.P.Dishonour of cheque .. 138-. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 147 (A..Non appearance of complainant on date fixed for appearance of accused .Complaint founded on this demand notice is not maintainable.Sentence of simple imprisonment and fine .No document produced in support of loan amount .P. Vs M/s Bansal Industries). 138-.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 271 (A. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Provision of S. Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion.Dishonour of cheque .).P. (Balasubbaraj Vs R.Complaint .Summoning order Quashing of .256 Cr. (Kapil Aggarwal Vs Raghu Vias).Dishonour of cheque . 139.It is for the complainant to prove that change in the date was made with the consent of accused. P.Change of date without authorisation ..L.#9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Dinesh Sahu Vs Dr.. 138-.Carbon copy of notice not filed . 138-.Dishonour of cheque . (Chhedi Lal Gupta Vs Shri Suresh Damani & Anr.) #15: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.Held.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Refusal by addressee . 1881.J.Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr. 142.).Complaint cannot be held to be defective on ground of lack of proof of notice.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #16: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.Refusal to accept notice is deemed a proper service . the endorsement on the cheque made by accused without knowledge of the complainant and in absence of mentioning the said fact in reply notice given by accused.).P.No ground to quash complaint.However. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL..Such fact to be established at trial . Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.An employee filed complaint on behalf of company . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Held. (Maganti Ganta Avadhani Vs Kopuri Sreenivasa Rao).). (Maharaja Developers & Anr.).Company . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 184 (MADRAS) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 221 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Notice .Accused admitted having received notice and that he replied notice . 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 672 (CALCUTTA) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (CALCUTTA) #14: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. taking cognizance is barred .Letter authorising employee to file complaint not filed Though this is a curable defect but same not removed even during trial . 138-. 138. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 034 (A.P.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #17: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. merely stated that he gave the cheques but it no where speaks about the change in dates .Endorsement on cheque `sans recourse' .).Order taking cognizance not liable to be quashed .). (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.Complaint Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant.Proof of .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.Partnership firm .. 1881.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . complainant cannot get any benefit of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd.Plea that petitioner was not a partner in firm or that he was not involved in day to day affairs of firm .2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.Mani). the prosecution cannot be quashed exonerating the accused from the liability u/s 138 of the Act.Notice .Dishonour of cheque .Provision of S.).. 1881. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. applies. 145-. 138.Complaint Issuance of process . complaint not maintainable for want of authority letter. 1881. the allegation that accused refused to receive notice even after due information given by postal authorities are matters for trial. 138-.Notice ... 142.J.Counting of 15 days starts from date of notice or the date on which notice was refused. (Asif Akbani Vs P.Contention that cheque itself speaks that payee will not have recourse to file the complaint.C.Received back unserved with endorsement 'addressee long absent and return to sender' .L.200 Cr. 1881.Partner Specific averments in complaint revealing role played by them and that they looked after day to day affairs of the firm .) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : . when once cheque is dishonoured.K.) #13: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 145-.K.C. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 294 (A. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.Material alteration . 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 138-..Dishonour of cheque .P. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 478 (M. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd.C.Jain & Anr. 1881.P.R.Photostat copy of notice not admissible in evidence .. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr. 138-. Complaint by Director of Company on behalf of company . whose statement was taken on oath.Dishonour of cheque . (Prashant M. Ltd..Held.It is open to the company to seek . Corp.Summoning order quashed ..Dishonour of cheque .Jain & Anr. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.).). justified. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (KARNATAKA) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138-.Complaint by power of attorney holder . 1881.) #25: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-.R.It is a curable defect Complainant directed to file affidavit setting out reasons for delay in filing complaint and trial Court directed to provide opportunity to accused to raise their defence .Signature on cheque denied . 138-.Refusal to receive .Particular person.2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Mere presentation of pre mature complaint need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed ..Complaint is liable to be dismissed.P.Persons sought to be made criminally liable . cognizance taken after maturity of complaint .Aachawal Vs Gulab Singh Raghuvanshi).P.Company .No ground to quash proceedings.Dishonour of cheque .. (Dinesh Sahu Vs Dr.Sanjeevan).Dishonour of cheque .Not permissible. 138-.138 of the Act is attracted.Documentary evidence not filed to show that he is Director of Company and has been authorised by the Company to file and depose on behalf of the company .Company Summoning order on basis of Affidavit . (S.Dishonour of cheque .Material alterations in promissory note and request for sending pronote for expert examination .Dishonour of cheque .).Held. (R. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 251 (M.P.Cheque issued to discharge promissory note .I.Dismissal of complaint . (M/s Voltas Ltd. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Delay Application for condonation of delay not filed alongwith complaint .P.Complaint . (T.Account was closed not by accused but by Bank in accordance with rules governing current account . 138-.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Company .If Court is satisfied that there are adequate and cogent reasons to condone delay.K. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 387 (KARNATAKA) #24: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.There can be occasions when different person can represent the company . 1881.Kanthimathi & Ors.. 1881. 1881. (Nagaraja Upadhya Vs M. 138-.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 201 (M. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 387 (KARNATAKA) #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Maruti Feeds & Farms Private Limited. 1881..Matter remitted for reconsideration.) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .Closure of account Account was closed even on date of issue of cheque . 138.. 138. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 382 (MADRAS) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Provision of S.Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for conduct of 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. Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 478 (M.Bank endorsement 'Account expires' .Company .Muthu Vs Kirupakaran).. 138-.). 1881.Plea taken for the first time at appellate stage . 1881. 138-.. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A.Amounts to dishonour of cheque . at the first instance is not required to represent the company till the end of the proceedings . Dharwad Vs Basanna Pattekar). (Nagaraja Upadhya Vs M.P..Sanjeevan). Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev.No steps taken to prove that the said signature is that of the accused . accused is not liable when he had no notice of closure of account.Dishonour of cheque .Pre-mature complaint However. 138-. 1881. 1881.Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant .Dishonour of cheque . 142-.C. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 330 (MADRAS) #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. then same to be decided on merits.Complaint when found to be well within time then non mentioning of date of service or refusal of notice in complaint is not harmful to the complainant. (Director. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd. Vs Bank of India). 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Santhamma & Anr. 000/.Accused not guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act.K.If realised the entire amount be released to the complainant.).Held.) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Cheque continues to be one issued for the discharge of liability as contemplated u/s 138 of the Act.Dishonour of cheque .).as compensation and in default to undergo S.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. rectify that defect .27. (K. 1881.Initiation of separate proceedings u/s 420 IPC for the offence of cheating is maintainable as it does not amount to double jeopardy.. Namakkal).Cheque amount Rs.. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Ss.P.).Sree Rama Murthy & Anr.).Notice if received back with postal endorsement that premises is found locked or the addressee is not available then notice is deemed to be served on the addressee unless addressee proves that he had no knowledge that notice was brought to his address.. 139-. 138.) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .. 138. Ltd.Cheque issued against loan .Rathikumar Vs N.. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. for a period of one month .P.Amendment in provision of S..Company ..Dishonour of cheque . (Indian Penal Code. 1881. 1881. (Harinderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab).Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 1860. Ltd. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 549 (MADRAS) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.420.K.Dishonour of cheque ..).) #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139-. 142-. 1881.Post dated cheque Initiation of proceedings u/s 138 of the Act . 141-.) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sentence . 138.No proof of lending money .Discharging of liability .Dishonour of cheque . Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt.Veeresham Vs S.). 000/. 1881.P. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A. (L.FIR quashed. 138-.Accused sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of Court .V.). 138-.Complaint filed Regarding same very cheques FIR lodged u/ss 420.Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan . still the Company can.Director Evidence is not required to be pleaded but there has to be a basic averment as to how one is involved in the alleged crime. when complainant does not place on record any material of lending money then it is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant .Dishonour of cheque .Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable.P. (V.At a subsequent stage.Complaint beyond period of limitation .Even month or year of loan not disclosed . 406).Kannan Vs State by District Crime Branch.Santhamma & Anr..P.No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged . the company can send a person who is competent to represent the company.Complaint can be kept pending for taking cognizance when cause of action arises to the complainant or it may be returned to complainant for filing it later.. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (A.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases. 138-. 1881.P. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.Prabhavathi Vs K. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (K. 138-. 138-. 138-. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A. 1881.K. Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt.Accused to pay Rs.permission of the Court for sending any other person to represent the company in the Court.).).Dishonour of cheque .Pre mature complaint .Shiva Shankar & Anr.Loan denied . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.K.I. (M/s Voltas Ltd.Sent by registered post at correct address .Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back . (M/s Voltas Ltd.Even if initially there was no authority.Santhamma & Anr. 406 IPC . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 637 (P&H) #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.20. 138-. 138. .Complaint by power of attorney holder . (G.Rathikumar Vs N. (K..Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause .Complaint not to be dismissed .Company .Rathikumar Vs N. at any stage. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (A.. 1881. Dishonour of cheque . 1881.).).Claim as to non receipt of ..Company Complaint by one of its Directors .C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 974 (S.Held.Giving is a process of which receipt is the accomplishment .Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.Company .C. 138-.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.Earlier accused did not pay instalments in respect of the prized amount of chitties . 1881.Loan . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. father and others . 1881.(C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Complainant is at liberty to file a suit for recovery of the amount as well as a complaint for bouncing of the cheques.C.) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.). (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt..Order of acquittal. (Smt.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.) 185 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S. 1881.If drawer does not make payment of cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons then plea of proper service of notice is not available to him.C.Complainant himself used to borrow money from his brothers. 142(a)-. accused has discharged his burden to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act .C. 1881.Notice .Accused acquitted.).`Giving notice' is not the same as `receipt of notice' . 138-. 138-.16 lakhs .) 185 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) 185 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . 138-. & Anr.No instrument executed though a huge loan was advanced ..C. (C. 1881.. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.Complainant failed to show that he had any financial capacity to advance such a huge amount .Trading Company.. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.Kiran Paper Convertors & Merchants & Ors. 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 429 (S..).C. 138-.Complaint ordered to be restored to be decided on merits..Dishonour of cheque .C. upheld. Vs M/s.Dishonour of cheque .C.Complaint .Notice . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 688 (KARNATAKA) #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed.Mere fact that proceedings have been quashed against the accused will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against him has been made out in the additional evidence led before it.).) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.Dishonour of cheque .Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.Drawer can still make the payment of cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons and can absolve himself of prosecution u/s 138 of the Act .Dismissed in default for single instance of non appearance of complainant . (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.Loan advanced inspite of the fact that three civil suits for recovery of money against accused were pending Complainant not approaching Court with clean hands and his conduct not that of a prudent man .Held. 1881.Surenderan).) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 371 (S.3.C.Mymoona Vs H.It is for the payee to perform the former process by sending the notice to the drawer at the correct address . Mangalore & Anr.C. (K. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (S. 141-.).Once notice is dispatched his part is over and the next depends on what the sendee does. (Print Links (India) & Anr. 1881. (John K.K.Advancing loan of a huge amount of Rs.). Ltd.John Vs Tom Varghese & Anr.C.M.C. 138.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.Prakashan Vs P. 138.Even no interest thereon charged .Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors .) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.) : AIR 2008 SC 278 : 2008 CRILJ 434 : 2007 AIRSCW 6736 : 2008 CLC 214 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 129 : 2007(12) SCC 714 : 2007(12) SCALE 333 : 2007(7) SUPREME 484 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (S.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.Dishonour of cheque . (C.. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (P&H) #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 655 (S.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.C. There was no debt or liability at the time when cheque was given .18 of Limitation Act if such revalidation is made within the period of limitation . 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 805 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 089 (BOMBAY) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.).) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S. 138-.Held.). (Dilip S. 138-.Company .Not liable for the offence committed by company .Director or person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of company cannot be prosecuted when notice is not issued to him ..Summoning order quashed..C. (Vijay Ganesh Gondhlekar Vs Indranil Jairaj Damale).P.A2 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one month .141 of the Act . 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice received back with postal endorsement that addressee was abroad .) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (S.Returned enveloped showed that it was sent by registered post acknowledgement due to the correct address with endorsement that `the addressee was abroad' . (C.Fine and compensation Distinction between sub-sections (1) and (3) of S.Conviction of company and A2 . Vs State & Anr.C.) 185 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Negotiable Instruments Act. (C.Dishonour of cheque .Company .Sent by registered post at correct address .Order of issuance of process against Director quashed and set aside.Company . 1881. (B. returned envelope annexed to complaint and thus it formed part of the complaint . .).) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.A2 also directed to pay compensation of Rs.This does not bring petitioner within the purview of S.25.Petitioner not incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company .25 of Contract Act as well as an acknowledgment within the meaning of S.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007(2) RCR(CRL.Dishonour of cheque .C. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (BOMBAY) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Company .C.). 1881. provision of S.Mamta Agency & Ors..However. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 198 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 252 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 269 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 599 : 2007(137) DLT 193 #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. including Director. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .Held.138 of the Act is sufficiently complied with.Notice .Absence of pleading that notice was sent at the correct address of the drawer by registered post acknowledgement due . 138-. 138. secretary or other officer of the company .C. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S. 000/. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.C.There is no reason as to why the amount of compensation should be held to be automatically payable.Compensation cannot be recovered forthwith unless period of appeal expires .Petitioner may have handled transactions for and on behalf of the company in India .Appellate Court while admitting appeal directed them to deposit .C.Director Tendered his resignation prior to issuance of cheque . 138-.357 Cr.138 is sufficiently complied with. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 387 (S. liability is legally enforceable liability.Ltd.Agent Petitioner neither a director.When a drawer revalidates cheque from time to time. 1881.Notice Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company Notice to company .C..Company sentenced to pay fine of Rs.. 141-..Dishonour of cheque . requirement of S.) 185 #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.). then on each occasion there is a fresh promise as envisaged by S. (Birthe Foster Vs State & Anr. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Summoning order qua petitioner quashed.C..Notice .Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. 141-.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.C. (Exports India & Anr. although the same is only to be recovered as if a fine has been imposed.Appeal against .).) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.Extension of date of cheque .. 1881. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 075 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (DELHI) #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 1881.Statutory notice to every person. 1881. which is permissible.Held..15 lacs to the complainant .Raman & Ors.Dishonour of cheque .) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL. 1881. 1881.Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co. 138-.Complaint not maintainable . (Amit Mohan Inder Mohan Sharma Vs M/s. who is sought to be prosecuted is mandatory. & Anr.Magistrate cannot award compensation in addition to fine .) 636 : 2007(2) RAJ 424 : 2007(6) SCC 528 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. manager. 138-. 138. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 387 (S. it is for . 139-..Defence set up in reply to notice not to be looked into at that stage.It is for drawer to rebut presumption .Pleading There should be an assertion in the complaint that the named accused are directors of the company and that they are incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.Company .C. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint .).Eastern Roadways Pvt.) 636 : 2007(2) RAJ 424 : 2007(6) SCC 528 #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (BOMBAY) #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs M/s.C.In absence of rebuttal evidence. 141-.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (S.C. (N. 1881. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1029 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY) #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Presumption .). Vs M/s.2 lakhs.Dishonour of cheque .Raman & Ors.Dishonour of cheque .Kumar Industries). 138.Directors .Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co.Cheque amount Rs.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited). 138-. (Zaheeda Kazi Vs Mrs..C.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.5 lacs each .. 138. 138-.A2 directed to deposit a sum of Rs.Ltd.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S. 1881. (Shanaz D'Souza Vs Sheikh Ameer Saheeb & Anr.Directors .Dishonour of cheque .Sharina Ashraff Khan). 1881.Exemption granted from personal appearance on deposit of an amount of Rs.1 lac .Delay Cannot be condoned without notice to accused.Has to be on the basis of allegations in complaint and preliminary evidence . (Shanaz D'Souza Vs Sheikh Ameer Saheeb & Anr..Notice Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company Statutory notice to every person.Cheque not issued for a debt or liability .If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1029 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. impugned order is not sustainable . 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881.Amount of compensation must be a reasonable amount ..) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI..).Since fine alone has been imposed on company which can be suspended during appeal. his statement can be recorded by Magistrate for verification of the complaint. 138-. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Burden of proof is on the accused.Summoning order Detailed reasons need not to be given. 1881. it is to be presumed that cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.Kumar Industries).Liability . (B. who is sought to be prosecuted. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRL. 1881.Ltd.Summoning order .Company . Vs M/s..Accused cannot be convicted u/s 138 of the Act. 138. 138-.If transactions are witnessed by power of attorney or he has full knowledge of the transactions. 141-.Cheque issued towards time barred debt . (Jayamma Vs Lingamma). 138.). 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Company . 138. 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.Kumar Industries). 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.A person is entitled to presume that directors of the company are incharge of the affairs of the company . (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S. is mandatory. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 . 1881.Complaint by power of attorney holder .a sum of Rs.C.. 138-.J..Dishonour of cheque .2 lakhs . 142-. & Anr. 141-. (Dilip S. including Director.).. 138-. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Exemption from personal appearance .Held. Vs M/s. 1881. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . ).C.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. .J.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI.). Vs M/s. 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL. was time barred as it was presented for payment after expiry of six months reckoned from date on which it was issued in blank.Sentence . 500/.. (N.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Blank cheque .the directors to establish it at the trial.Mohanan & Anr.C. notice is presumed to have been served. every person.Notice ..Despatch of notice within 30 days is the requirement of law .Two cheque of the value of Rs. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.in each case without any direction to pay .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .P. 1881..K.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S. 1881.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER. (Ravi Vs Kuttappan).Cheque presented to bank for realisation and same dishonoured .Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Sent through registered post at correct address . (Jayamma Vs Lingamma). the veracity of the allegations is not to be tested in proceedings u/s 482 of the Code as the same had to be tested in the backdrop of the evidence which is yet to come on record. shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company.Held. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER. 1881.55.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.. 1881.) : 2007(2) AIRKARR 326 : 2007(55) ALLINDCAS 719 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 1708 : 2007(3) KANTLJ 122 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 213 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr..Complaint . 138-. 1881...Blank cheque . 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S. 139-.C.There must be allegation in complaint and evidence that blank cheque was issued with implied authority to holder to fill up the same. 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL. 138-.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 141-.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited). (Jayamma Vs Lingamma).No criminal liability for the reasons that (i) cheque when issued was blank. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 951 (KAR.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S. (iii) cheque when issued was not towards any existing debt or liability .Cheque issued for cost of goods to be supplied by drawee .Fine imposed Rs. 138.Quashing of proceedings In proceedings u/s 482 of Cr.Forms part of the record and it need not be marked and non marking is not fatal to the complainant's case. High Court is not to go into the truthfulness of the allegations Once a complaint discloses the commission of an offence.Even if the signature in the cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed by the accused.Blank cheque .Kumar Industries)..Notice received back `unclaimed' . 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited)..2500/. 138. (Vishnudas Vs Vijaya Mahantesh).Bank account closed after issuance of cheque . 138-.Mohanan & Anr.K.J.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. (Kamalammal Vs C. (Kamalammal Vs C. 1881.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Company . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.Order of trial Court acquitting accused calls for no interference.C.Date of receipt of notice is not crucial or relevant. 138.Notice . 138-. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 . (ii) Cheque when presented for payment. 138-.It cannot be presumed that an implied authority is given to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt etc. 139-. 138-. (N. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 .C..When the offender is a company.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 337 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1955 (KERALA) : 2007(3) KERLT 31 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 28 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Dishonour of cheque .D.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI.C.Presumption .Undelivered letter or A. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Cheque payable to bearer .Respondent is deemed to be holder in due course of cheque . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA) . 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Partnership firm .Notice . 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.Dishonour of cheque .Holder in due course .) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability . 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S. & Ors.amount due on cheques bounced .Period to file complaint is thus extended to a further period of a week..Dishonour of cheque .Director who negotiated for obtaining financial assistance on behalf of the Company cannot be held vicariously liable .The presumption is rebuttable . 1881. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL. 1881.).) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI.Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted with.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S. 1881. (K.It does not give rise to an inference that he was responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company .Dishonour of cheque . 138-. & Ors.Company .) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S. (Shri Basavraj D..). 1881. 1881.Company .The burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused.). 138-.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.).C. 138.Allowance of period of service of notice which at least should be a week is admissible in this regard . 139-. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.).Bhave & Anr.Director Vicarious liability .Consideration Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes . (R.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala & Ors.C. 139-.Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved .That should be the rule unless there are good reasons to depart from the same . 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.).Director Vicarious liability . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.Allayyanvar Vs Shri Santosh Kapadi)..C.).C. 138-.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd.C.. 138-.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S. Vs Prafull Chandra).It must be pleaded that accused was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company.In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act.Sentence imposed set aside and case remanded with a direction to pass appropriate sentence in accordance with law...C.It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (K.It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N. 138-. 1881. 138-. (K.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability .C.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. (ICICI Bank Ltd.Director Vicarious liability . Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 731 (DELHI) #7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Has locus to file complaint on dishonour of cheque.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .Must be pleaded and proved . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 437 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2007 NOC 1358 (BOMBAY) : 2007 CRILJ 2220 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 314 : 2007 ALLMR(CR() 1063 : 2007(1) BOMCR (CRI) 1028 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. not received back . & Ors. 1881.Complainant should at least be compensated with the amount due by the accused on the cheque issued by him . (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr.Son of deceased partner Cannot be impleaded as an accused merely for the reason that he happens to be the son of deceased partner. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr..) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S. Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present proceedings instituted by him to realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable Accused acquitted.). 1881.Not possible to lend money without any document .Cheque not presented in Bank for encashment within six months from the date on which it was drawn .Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced .. & Anr.Compensation .Cheque drawn for discharge of time-barred liability .3.Accused borrowed money and issued two cheques . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.).Dishonour of cheque . 30-. 1881.).P.Held.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 469 (RAJASTHAN) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Compensation . 1881. 1881. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.Fine/or compensation Power of court to impose fine may or may not be limited but power to award compensation is not . 138-.#10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Dishonour of cheque .I.P.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1881. direction u/s 357(1) or S.Dishonour of cheque ..Compensation .) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 .Dishonour of cheque . for payment of compensation cannot be issued.).3 lacs .).) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr. (M.Subsequent to the bouncing of cheques complainant did not avail of second option .Jurisdiction .No offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out. 1881.Shankar). 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Money lender . as there was contingent alternative available to complainant to get worth of his money in terms of real estate which was not availed. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER. 138-.Accused convicted and sentenced till rising of Court .138 of the Act.50 lacs and in default to undergo two months S.Dishonour of cheque will fall within the sweep of S.Compensation amount if realised payable to complainant. (Geeta Vs State of U.Accused liable to pay compensation of Rs. (Geeta Vs State of U.357(3) Cr. no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out.High Court of one State cannot quash criminal proceedings pending in a Court within jurisdiction of another High Court.When dishonour of cheque takes place.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy). 138-.Unless amount is claimable in civil suit.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . & Anr. 138-. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER...Cheque issued towards repayment of loan . (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.Two options were available to complainant to either get the cheques encashed or in the alternative to get plot of 100 square yards .Date of lending money not mentioned in complaint and notice ..Consideration for payment of compensation is somewhat different from payment of fine. 138-. . (Tripti Vyas Vs M/s Ahlers India Pvt. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr...Presumption u/s 139 is not available . 138-. 1881.).Dishonour of cheque .Interest Direction can be issued u/s 357(3) Cr..) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.Suresh Kumar Vs R.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Ltd.P. (P.P.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER. 1881.). 138.. 1881. certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated.C. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S. for payment of interest.Dishonour of cheque of Rs. 138-.C. 138-. 138-. (Shri Basavraj D.) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 500/.Presumption Rebuttal .In the instant case interest at the rate of 8% per annum allowed. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.Time barred complaint Condonation of delay .Dishonour of cheque .Allayyanvar Vs Shri Santosh Kapadi).in each case without any direction to pay amount due on cheques bounced .Consideration Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes .C.).Interest Court can ascertain the loss which the complainant would suffer/has suffered on account of the delay in payment and appropriate rate of interest can be directed to be paid.Burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution.Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved .C.Dishonour of cheque .Petitioner was not Director at the material time .Director Vicarious liability . 1881. 138. 1881. (Kamala S.C.. 139. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S. (K. & Ors. consistent with the rate of interest payable by the nationalised banks .#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.It does not give rise to an inference that he was responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.Company . 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference..) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Proceedings against petitioner.).J.Compensation ..Dishonour of cheque . 1881.). 138-.That should be the rule unless there are good reasons to depart from the same .Company .55. Vs Vidyadharan M. 138-.C. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr. 138-. 138. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 437 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2007 NOC 1358 (BOMBAY) : 2007 CRILJ 2220 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 314 : 2007 ALLMR(CR() 1063 : 2007(1) BOMCR (CRI) 1028 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 139-. 138-. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER..) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon . 1881.2500/.Imposition of fine and/or compensation must be considered having regard to the relevant factors in mind as envisaged u/s 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. & Anr.. (Prashant Goel Vs State & Anr.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .Fine imposed Rs.Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 065 (DELHI) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N. 138-.Director who negotiated for obtaining financial assistance on behalf of the Company cannot be held vicariously liable .Director Cheque issued in 2003 whereas petitioner ceased to be Director of Company in 1994 ..First notice of application be issued to the other side without taking cognizance of complaint . 1881.).).) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.Sentence imposed set aside and case remanded with a direction to pass appropriate sentence in accordance with law. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 028 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (P.Dishonour of cheque ..) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI.. 1881.. 118(a)-. 139-.Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability . 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .Complainant should at least be compensated with the amount due by the accused on the cheque issued by him .Certified copy of Form-32 issued by Registrar of Companies is a conclusive proof that petitioner resigned in 1994 .Dishonour of cheque .Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted with.Sentence .Dishonour of cheque .) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. quashed .).Two cheque of the value of Rs.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S. (Dr.Application be decided after hearing the parties.J.C..).Shankar).Bhave & Anr. Vs Vidyadharan M.(Mrs.Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones .Fine and/or compensation .) Sarla Kumar Vs Srei International Finance Ltd. 138. & Anr. (Kamala S.Suresh Kumar Vs R. ) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER. (K. (R.Director Vicarious liability .357(3) Cr.Partnership firm .Jurisdiction .C.P.When dishonour of cheque takes place. for payment of compensation cannot be issued. Vs Prafull Chandra). 1881. 138.. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 469 (RAJASTHAN) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. & Ors.Company . certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated.C. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr. 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr.Cheque payable to bearer .Director Vicarious liability . (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.Compensation . (Tripti Vyas Vs M/s Ahlers India Pvt.P.).).) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala & Ors.C.Must be pleaded and proved . & Ors.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Compensation .Company . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 731 (DELHI) #7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Holder in due course . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.Period to file complaint is thus extended to a further period of a week. 138-.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI..C.C. 139-. 1881..). not received back .Compensation .Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 1881.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd.Allowance of period of service of notice which at least should be a week is admissible in this regard .Unless amount is claimable in civil suit..) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S. 138. 138-.Presumption .). 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S. (K.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 138-.The presumption is rebuttable .Son of deceased partner Cannot be impleaded as an accused merely for the reason that he happens to be the son of deceased partner. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI.Undelivered letter or A.It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference.High Court of one State cannot quash criminal proceedings pending in a Court within jurisdiction of another High Court. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.). direction u/s 357(1) or S.Notice .Has locus to file complaint on dishonour of cheque.. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881.). Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability ..Ltd. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr...) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.).Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. for payment of interest. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881..) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 30-.D.).The burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused.It must be pleaded that accused was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company. (ICICI Bank Ltd.C.). 138-.Respondent is deemed to be holder in due course of cheque .Interest Direction can be issued u/s 357(3) Cr. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.. 1881.In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES .Held.3 lacs . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.. 139. 1881. & Anr. (Prashant Goel Vs State & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Certified copy of Form-32 issued by Registrar of Companies is a conclusive proof that petitioner resigned in 1994 . (M.).Cheque drawn for discharge of time-barred liability . . (P.). (Geeta Vs State of U.Cheque not presented in Bank for encashment within six months from the date on which it was drawn . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Shankar)..Burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution..C.).Dishonour of cheque . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.First notice of application be issued to the other side without taking cognizance of complaint . 1881..P. quashed .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present proceedings instituted by him to realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable Accused acquitted. (Kamala S. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 028 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).). 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR.Fine/or compensation Power of court to impose fine may or may not be limited but power to award compensation is not .C.J.. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER. 138-. 139-.. 1881. no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out.3. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr. 118(a)-.Petitioner was not Director at the material time . 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.J.Suresh Kumar Vs R.) Sarla Kumar Vs Srei International Finance Ltd.Presumption u/s 139 is not available . 1881. 138.I. 138-.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..).Dishonour of cheque .. & Anr. & Anr. Vs Vidyadharan M.Presumption Rebuttal .Dishonour of cheque will fall within the sweep of S. 138-.Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.).Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones . 1881.) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.(Mrs.). 138. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S. as there was contingent alternative available to complainant to get worth of his money in terms of real estate which was not availed.P.Accused liable to pay compensation of Rs. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr. (Kamala S.. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . Vs Vidyadharan M. 1881.Two options were available to complainant to either get the cheques encashed or in the alternative to get plot of 100 square yards .) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Time barred complaint Condonation of delay .C.Dishonour of cheque .Consideration for payment of compensation is somewhat different from payment of fine.) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Compensation amount if realised payable to complainant. (Dr.Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced ..Proceedings against petitioner.Subsequent to the bouncing of cheques complainant did not avail of second option .Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.50 lacs and in default to undergo two months S.Date of lending money not mentioned in complaint and notice .138 of the Act.Dishonour of cheque .Application be decided after hearing the parties.Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . & Anr. 1881. 138-. (Geeta Vs State of U. 138-.Not possible to lend money without any document .) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Accused borrowed money and issued two cheques .) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Money lender .No offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out.Cheque issued towards repayment of loan .Director Cheque issued in 2003 whereas petitioner ceased to be Director of Company in 1994 . 1881.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy).Dishonour of cheque of Rs.Accused convicted and sentenced till rising of Court . in case cheque is issued in anticipation of lending money but money is not given to the borrower then consideration fails and S.Dishonour of cheque . (P.Quashing of complaint Accused took plea that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security .It is liable to be deemed that there was no sufficient service of notice .Compensation . (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.Such matter has to be looked into at stage of trial.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.It is necessary to specifically aver in complaint that at the time offence was committed.Dishonour of cheque .). 141-. it was dishonoured.Company .K.Complaint qua petitioner quashed. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.C. 1881. 1881. 138. 138. 138-. 138-.C. 1881. were complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice.S. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr..) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.. 141-. 138-.C..Director Vicarious liability .C. (S. (George Vs Kamarudeen).) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.Proceedings quashed.Notice .P.) #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 141-. the person accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company .Notice sent under UPC received by addressee .Notice sent as per registered post returned by postman by endorsing false report . 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 393 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 59 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 755 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.Ingredients of offence u/s 138 of the Act are : (i) a cheque was issued.Without such an averment in complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied .No such averment in complaint .) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Same not controverted by filing counter affidavit .Dishonour of cheque .M.065 (DELHI) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Sent as per registered post and also as per UPC . neither any payment was made nor other obligations. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.).Dishonour of cheque .S. & Anr. 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.However..Lending of money Cheque issued before amount given by complainant .) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138-.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . & Anr.Company . (Hazi Abadullah & Ors.43 of the Act comes into play.In the instant case interest at the rate of 8% per annum allowed.Interest Court can ascertain the loss which the complainant would suffer/has suffered on account of the delay in payment and appropriate rate of interest can be directed to be paid.C.Pharmaceutical Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .Director Only such person is liable if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively.Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for an offence committed by the Company that he was in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business .. (N. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr.Company . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KERALA) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Service of notice denied by filing affidavit . and (v) despite service of notice.M.). 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.). (iii) but.Dishonour of cheque .Imposition of fine and/or compensation must be considered having regard to the relevant factors in mind as envisaged u/s 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure..P. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr. (S..). consistent with the rate of interest payable by the nationalised banks . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S. 43-. Vs State of U. 138-.Pharmaceutical Ltd. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S. if any.C. Vs State of U.).Fine and/or compensation . 1881. 1881. (iv) a notice in terms of the said provision was served on the person sought to be made liable.It is not a ground for quashing complaint . 138.)..Cheque is one issued in discharge of the debt or liability coming u/s 138 of the Act . (ii) the same was presented. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S. 1881.Shankar). 138.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Dishonour of cheque .C.Dishonour of cheque . Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. Dishonour of cheque . (Umaswamy Vs K. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 1881.I.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Shivaraj). 138-. 1881.Failure to produce power of attorney authorising to lodge complaint and to give sworn statement on behalf of his principal .Dismissal of complaint for want of proof of power of attorney justified.Notice ...Signature on cheque disputed . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 135 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Not a ground to exonerate the penal liability u/s 138 of N. Ltd & Anr. 141-. (Rajendra Prasad Vs M. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Order staying proceedings under section 138 because of Section 446 of Companies Act. 141-.Section 138 of NI Act has overriding effect over section 446 of Companies Act . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S. (Manibhadra Marketing Pvt.Even if cheque is issued as a security for payment.Director resigned prior to issuance of cheque .Provision of Section 446 of Companies Act has no application to the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act .C.In absence of any averment or specific evidence the complaint is not entertainable.C. 141-.No counter credential projected by complainant Petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability under Section 138 of the N.Banker is more competent to say whether it is signature of accused or not with reference to specimen signatures . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 096 (KARNATAKA) #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).. Vs Shanthi Group.Bank not accepting the cheque . 138-. 1881. 138-.).Pharmaceutical Ltd.S.. 1881. 1872.. (N.Acquittal not valid. 138. 138-.. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.Evidence Act.) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. it is negotiable instrument and encashable security at the hands of payee .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . Section 47 .Cheque presented again . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 142 (BOMBAY) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Court should be assisted by experts opinion .).Company .Company .2 to 12 were Directors/persons responsible for carrying out business of company and the liability of accused persons was joint and several .High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show that respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed proceedings against respondents .No averment in complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day business of the company or was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence . 138.Company . 141-.C.Udhani & Ors.) #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 176 (RAJASTHAN) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.I.). 1881.Court undertook exercise of naked comparison of signatures of accused on cheque with other admitted signatures and came to conclusion that signature on cheque does not appear to be signature of accused .Ramanath). 1881. 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S. 1881.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.Director Allegations in complaint that respondent accused Nos. (Gyan Chand Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.Dishonor of cheque .Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. (Lachhman P.M. Act.Complaint by power of attorney holder .Dishonour of Cheque .Complaint dismissed..Dishonour of cheque .Director There should be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by a Director in the transaction .Redington (India) Ltd.).Bank had no occasion either to honour or dishonour the cheque . Vs M/s.Dishonour of cheque . Act.K.C.Dishonour of cheque .Part time Director .Not received by accused . 138-..Issuance of cheque proved Presumption arises u/s 139 of Act in favour of complainant .N.Company .K.Description should be clear .Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.Company .) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.. 138.Petitioner not a signatory of the cheque - . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KARNATAKA) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Issued as security ..No cause of action .). 1881.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Bangalore & Ors.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S. Vs Chandrakant Manilal Kothari & Anr.Director The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed.There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company .Expert opinion .C. 138.No reason to interfere. quashed.Dishonour of cheque . (S. (N. (Harihara Puthra Sharma Vs State of Kerala & Anr..Process issued .Complaint filed by husband on behalf of wife on the basis of authority letter . 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dismissal in default . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 549 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1383 (KAR.Fine exceeding Rs.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #2: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Jurisdiction .Ashok).Ink of signature different from the ink of other writings of cheque Entire cheque amount found not due in view of admission of receipt of certain amount .) : 2007 CRILJ 2312 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 58 : 2007(4) AIRBOMR 664 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 936 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 479 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (V.Proviso (a) . 143-.Complaint ordered to be returned for its presentation before the proper Court. (O..Court at the place of office of Advocate who issued statutory notice has no territorial jurisdiction . 1881.Husband neither a general nor special power of attorney holder .).Dishonour of cheque .5..Sasidaran Nayar).When cheque is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds then there is no need for handwriting expert to give his opinion on signature on cheque . 1881.).R.Dishonour of cheque .Liability u/s 138 of Act not incurred . (V. 1881. complainant not competent to institute the complaint . 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM. (Ratan Lal Garera & Ors.Signatures denied Handwriting expert . the best witness would be the concerned Bank Manager and not a handwriting expert . 138-.Complaint can be dismissed in default when personal attendance of complaint was essential on the crucial date .Complaint . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 355 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 604 (P&H) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Company . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (J&K) .can be imposed in view of amended provision of S.). (O.G. (Dilawar Singh Vs Pankaj Joshi & Anr. held.Appeal Admitted and notice ordered to be issued to the complainant .. (Shrikant Chavan Vs Hotel the Vaishno Devi). 1881.(As amended) . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). six months .Rama Shetty Vs N.Dharman & Anr.Winding up orders of company passed and official liquidator appointed .Dishonour of cheque .143 of the Act.No legally enforceable debt .Non appearance of accused Appeal cannot be dismissed for default .Proceedings against petitioner quashed..Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.N.In the authority letter it was no where undertaken that the executant would be bound by the acts done and conducted on her behalf in respect of the cheque . 000/.). (Rajendra B.Dishonour of cheque .Legally enforceable debt Rebuttal of presumption .In case of denial of signature of drawer of a cheque.e. 138-..Satish Vs B... (Nanu Vs Vijayan).Proceedings quashed.).Acquittal.Conviction .Order dismissing complaint in default set aside as complaint was dismissed without considering the said question.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 1881. 1881. Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr..Cheque not presented within its validity period i. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 252 (KERALA) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Quashing of proceedings .Held.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.Appellate Court has to peruse the record and pass an order on merits.). 138-. proper.M.Impugned order allowing application not sustainable in law. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 231 (KARNATAKA) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr. 1881.Jayasankar Vs K.Complaint against Directors of Company in respect of cheques presented and dishonoured after winding up orders are passed is not maintainable. 138-. 1881.P. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 193 (KERALA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (H.`Within a period of six months' Date of cheque is not to be excluded in calculating the period of six months.Complaint quashed. Accused purchasing potatoes from complainant on behalf of company .Dishonour of cheque .President on behalf of Society can file complaint.Co-operative Society .Compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act can be done during trial of case as well as by the High Court or Court or Session while acting in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Cr.Ltd. is not required when accused is represented through his counsel and it is not a case where he is absconding and evading the court process.. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 704 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 143 (KER.Filing of complaint after period of limitation .It is open to Court to take cognizance ..Dishonour of cheque . 138-. cheque is required to be presented to the drawee bank or the payee bank within the period of six months from the date of its issue.Dishonour of cheque .Girish Kumar Vs M/s Muthoot Capital Service Pvt.Conviction . (J. 1881.Such default sentence shall lapse at any time when the payment is made either before or after the default sentence starts running. summoning order quashed. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan).Ranga).. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR. 147-. 1881.P.C.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of such cheque does not attract prosecution u/s 138 of the Act.For invoking criminal liability under S.S.C. properly addressed. Vs Umesh Sharma). 142-.. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 467 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 631 (ALLAHABAD) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Sanjay Chaturvedi Vs State). .Accused to undergo two months SI on failure to pay compensation amount within two months . 138-. (J. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (DELHI) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sent through private courier service .. 1881. 1881. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A. 1881.Notice . 1881.Presumption of service of notice is available only when notice is sent by post..) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.). & Anr.Default sentence .G.Issue of non bailable warrants and issue of process u/ss 82/83 Cr. accused is validly prosecution . 1881. 138.#3: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). (M/s Sathavahana Ispat Ltd. once cheque is duly singed by accused. 1881.Compounding of offence .Order set aside . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 499 (KARNATAKA) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-..C.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan).) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Presumption of service of notice is not available .P.Conviction upheld..).) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 86 : 2007(1) KERLJ 161 : 2007(1) KERLT 16 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 103 #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque issued in respect of uncertain future liabilities . 139-. 142(b)-. 138.Dishonour of cheque . (Shrikant Chavan Vs Hotel the Vaishno Devi). (K.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 439 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 351 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 214 (P&H) : 2007(1) RECCIVR 217 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-..Held.. 1881.Complaint Limitation .Denial of issuance of cheque .Held.Revision against . (Ramesh Chander Vs State of Haryana & Anr. mere denial of issuing cheque is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act.Application dismissed and non bailable warrants issued and also issued process u/ss 82/83 Cr.Conviction . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.138 of the Act. 138.Dishonour of cheque . prepaying and sent by registered post . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (J&K) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . (Deepak Kumar & Anr. in absence of date of service of notice of demand.Summoning order Accused appeared through counsel and moved an application for exemption from his personal appearance . 138.P.Accused issued cheque in discharge of debt of company Held.Accused transacting business on behalf of company on commission basis . C.C.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. permitting a single trial.. 1881.Magistrate directed to forward the cheque to expert for comparison if accused wants the admitted handwritings/specimen writings to be compared with the disputed writings in the cheque..Refusal of Magistrate to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence cannot lead to causing miscarriage of justice. 138. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Dishonour of cheque . (K. 141-. (K.Seven cheques issued on different dates .Seven cheques issued on different dates .Dishonour of cheque . (Rajendra B.Complaint beyond limitation when filed in .If not filed at initial stage can be filed even at a later stage when validity of the same is questioned and Court then has to decide the genuineness or the validity of the same. 1881. 1881.Territorial jurisdiction . 138-.Seven complaints are maintainable . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Trial for each offence held separately and accused convicted . (K. it is not obligatory for the trial Court to direct in all cases that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence . 138-. 1881. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.by the Power of Attorney Holder).C. Bangalore & Ors.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.Seven complaints filed ..P.Power of attorney . if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. 138-.. 138-.CJM erroneously took cognizance .Power of attorney holder It is not required to record the sworn affidavit of complainant also on a future date to enable the Court to exercise its discretion u/ss 202 & 203 of Cr.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.of complaint made after prescribed period.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Misutilisation of blank signed cheque . 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S. 1881. 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.Dishonour of cheque .Separate notices issued ..) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.Dishonour of cheque . (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair).Complaint is maintainable and not bad in law.).by the Power of Attorney Holder).Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution . (Rajendra B. 1881. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.Sending cheque to handwriting expert .Held.An employee of a proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the Act.Dishonour of cheque . in case single notice is issued then all the transactions covered by the notice would be regarded as a single transaction.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.).) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes).Complaint returned to be presented in a Court having territorial jurisdiction .Complaint filed in the Court of CJM whereas it had to be filed in the Court of Magistrate in the same district . Vs Shanthi Group.)..) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.Proprietorship concern .by the Power of Attorney Holder).Separate notices issued .Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.However.Dishonour of cheque .Power of attorney holder Complaint signed by power of attorney holder in his own name and not on behalf of complainant . 138-.Complaint .C.. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195 (KER.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint through power of attorney holder . Every Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint throughout the district. Vs M/s.Kerala High Court is not competent to quash the complaint or interfere with the proceedings before a criminal court.Vicarious liability .Complaint.Ramankutty & Anr.Limitation starts to run from receipt of second notice. 138-.Jurisdiction .Court of Magistrate .Cause of action arises only on receipt of second notice . 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 607 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (DELHI) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. once the Court of CJM had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. (Meenakshi Sathish (Mrs.). (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair).Manager not duly authorized by Board of Directors to sign and file the complaint Not a ground for quashing the complaint. 1881..N.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S...Notice issued again .).). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes).Quashing of Non supply of goods for which cheque was issued .Shirdi Overseas Imports & Exports & Anr. 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195 (KER.) Vs Southern Petrochemical Industries & Ors. Vs S.Limitation .Unnikrishnan Vs T.. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Manager filed complaint . 138-.Dishonour of cheque .. 138-.Held. (Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs State of Maharashtra).Bank . 1881. 138.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.K. 138-.141 of the Act so as to make some persons other than company vicariously liable therefor...Soman Pillai Vs Sabu Jacob & Anr.Court at place where cheque was presented for realisation has no jurisdiction to try the offence.Money lending business Question as to complainant having no money lending licence is not relevant in a complaint filed u/s 138 NI Act which is more in quasi civil and criminal in nature.C. 138-. 1881.Complaint .) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (BOMBAY) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 771 (BOMBAY) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Dishonour of cheque .C.K.Cheque presented against and dishonoured again .Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 138-.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S. the period provided for limitation would stop running from the day it was presented in the said Court .) : 2007 CRILJ 1042 : 2007(3) ALJ 390 : 2007(5) AKAR 813 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 445 : 2007(49) ALLINDCAS 208 : 2007(1) KERLJ 178 : 2006(4) KERLJ 604 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 591 #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Parameshwarappa & Anr. held within limitation. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 945 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2032 (KER.Not a ground to quash complaint .Dishonour of cheque .Choodappa). (M/s. outside the jurisdiction of the Court. 141-. (Bhasin Credit Aid Ltd. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 638 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1057 (P&H) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (S.Dishonour of cheque .Court at the place where money was intended to be paid has jurisdiction .Recall of witness . (V. 1881. it may order presentation of complaint at a place so earmarked .Cause of action arose within State of Kerala but complaint filed in a Court outside the State of Kerala .Signature in cheque Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution By mere admission of signature right of accused to contend that a blank signed cheque was misutilised by the payee is not taken away.Dishonour of cheque .Notice issued but received back with endorsement `no such addressee' . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (KERALA) (FB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 798 (KERALA) (FB) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. but because of division of work that Court may not try a complaint and.). 1881. Vs Raj Kumar).Dishonour of cheque .Serve Overseas & Anr..Company .Company . (T.It is a matter of fact which has to be proved before a Court of law.Dishonour of cheque . therefore.. 1881.Complaint must contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview of S. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Transaction relating to cheque not as alleged in complaint .Cheque drawn and handed over to brother of complainant could not have been made use of by the complainant.Complaint should be kept pending till the ripening of cause of action or complaint to be returned with an advice to the complainant for presentation after completion of necessary statutory period.Pleading . Vs State. 138-. 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 750 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 2039 (DELHI) : 2007 CRILJ 2262 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 765 : 2006(135) DLT 273 : 2007(2) KERLJ 31 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque issued in discharge of liability arising out of an agreement void ab initio Provision of S..Dishonour of cheque .) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs S. (Virender Singh Vs Laxmi Narain & Anr. (Everest Advertising Pvt. (V.Drawer cannot get absolved of the liability u/s 138 of the Act.Recall of order .) #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Legally enforceable debt or liability .A Magistrate does not have and..Premature complaint . unless the complainant has a case that accused did not honour the agreement and that consequent on that his brother had handed over the cheque and thus he became a holder in due course .Parameshwarappa & Anr.N. 1881..Ltd.141 of the Act stand satisfied.Held.Cheque of Rs.)..Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 759 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1025 (KERALA) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.K.Dishonour of cheque .Production of cheque and memo is necessary for the just decision of a complaint . 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) . 1881. (S.entrusted to brother of complainant Agreement reduced to writing .). 138-.There must be an averment that the person who is vicariously liable for commission of the offence of the Company both was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company .No offence is made out u/s 138 of the Act .Choodappa).Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively.Ltd. 138-. Govt.Ltd. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.).Unnikrishnan Vs T. 1881.Shivadas Vs Ramanath Shetty & Anr..As a result of fall out of non payment negotiations were held between parties wherein Respondent Nos.Concurrent finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court that accused were in charge of and were responsible to company for conduct of its business Such finding needs no interference in revision..138 of the Act is not attracted.Not proper to dismiss complaint . 1881.. 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 982 (ALLAHABAD) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Chairman or Director .Dishonour of cheque .). Vs State.Company . (T. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 747 (KARNATAKA) #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.40.No ground to quash complaint.Directors Pleading .C.Company . 1881. Govt.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .No reason to interfere in the order of acquittal. 138-.Summoning order .Prosecution of Chairman and Director of Company . Govt. 1881. 1881.) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.2 and 3 took part . (Janeshwar Dutt Vs Sanjiv Kumar).witness produced but through oversight the dishonoured cheque and memo issued by Bank not exhibited . of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 138-. (Anil Kumar Jaiswal Vs State & Anr.). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 693 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 833 (P&H) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .C.Ramankutty & Anr.Cheque filled up by some other person putting the date and amount .Dishonour of cheque .. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Application allowed.). cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction. there is no doubt that ingredients of S. 000/.Quashing of complaint on ground that complainant is not a holder in due course .Yousaf).Blank cheque theory Cheque signed by drawer .S. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.)..Holder in due course Partnership business dissolved .Company .Question can be decided only when parties lead evidence .C.Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the summoning order . of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.It is a case of oversight and not an attempt to fill in the lacuna .Dishonour of cheque . 138-. Vs State. thus. (Madamuttathil Abdul Razak Vs M. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Complaint against firm and its five partners ..P.Drawer admitting balance amount shown as due in running account.Condonation .) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 888 (M.Gunmala & Ors.Notice issued by firm which was different from the one in whose name cheque was issued .. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 782 (M. 138-. 1881.Notice issued in itself defective .. 138-.Complaint filed through power of attorney holder . 138-. 138. 1881.Consideration .Dishonour of cheque .Every error is not justification for invoking revisional powers .).Dishonour of cheque .Dismissal of complaint on ground of non production of invoices relating to sales of goods held. 1881.Drawer of cheque regular customer and purchasing goods on credit .Eastern Roadways Pvt. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Ltd.) #17: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 141-.Complaint. Vs M/s.Dishonour of cheque .Firm .Sarala). 138-. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.) : 2007 CRILJ 2643 : 2007(3) AKAR 423 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 865 : 2006(4) KERLT 308 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. as true and correct . Ltd. revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked.Company .Cheque issued in name of firm but complaint filed by a firm different from the one in whose name cheque was issued .Unless the alleged infraction of procedure resulted in miscarriage of justice.Authority letter or power of attorney whereby attorney was authorised to file complaint on behalf of company not filed . 138-.R. 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Entire proceedings vitiated on this ground alone.Delay can be condoned only on issuance of notice to accused.Not clear as to what type of questions are necessary to be put to the complainant . (Rajeev Soni Vs Indresh Singh). not proper .Bhojarajan).) : 2007 CRILJ 482 : 2007(2) ALJ 313 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 182 : 2006(48) ALLINDCAS 717 : ILR(KANT. held.) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. rightly dismissed. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 812 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 103 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 725 (KAR.Company Complaint against company and its Directors . 1881.No ground made out to quash the proceedings.Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan .Dishonour of cheque . (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand).Cheque will continue to be one issued for discharge of liability as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act.Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed. (Ganesh Enterprises.. 1881. 138-.Dishonour of Cheque . (Luxmi Devi Vs .P. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 024 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 210 (KER.Accused liable to conviction.Dishonour of cheque . (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem).Dishonour of Cheque .This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of the Act .#14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Without this averment in complaint.Permissible only when debt or liability is disputed by accused and existence of account books/papers is admitted by complainant. (Rathikumar Vs Santhamma). 1881. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Delay of 3 days in filing complaint. Bangalore Vs D...At the fag end of trial. reopening of trial cannot be permitted and complainant cannot be recalled for cross examination. Ltd. 138.) 2006 KAR 3771 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 498 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Rajkumar Vs Smt.). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 798 (M. requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.Recall of complainant for cross examination when the case was at the stage of pronouncement of judgment . and responsible for the conduct of business of the company . the person accused was in charge of..Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 524 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 942 (KAR) : 2007 CLC 1004 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 199 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 501 : 2007(53) ALLINDCAS 576 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 801 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 131 #16: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm ..Dishonour of cheque . 1881. Vs S.Revision . Vs S. 141-. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt.Production of books of account maintained by complainant .Bhojarajan). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction.). (S. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Question can be decided only when parties lead evidence .Kerala High Court is not competent to quash the complaint or interfere with the proceedings before a criminal court. 138-. (Everest Advertising Pvt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.Choodappa).N.141 of the Act stand satisfied. 1881. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.. Vs State.Unnikrishnan Vs T. 139-.Accused living at Chandigarh .Held. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (T.) Vs Southern Petrochemical Industries & Ors.) #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Govt.Transitory bail .Jurisdiction .Money lending business Question as to complainant having no money lending licence is not relevant in a complaint filed u/s 138 NI Act which is more in quasi civil and criminal in nature.Dishonour of cheque .Cause of action arose within State of Kerala but complaint filed in a Court outside the State of Kerala .Production of cheque and memo is necessary for the just decision of a complaint .Ltd. 138-.Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. 1881..A Magistrate does not have and.Dishonour of cheque .It is a case of oversight and not an attempt to fill in the lacuna . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.As a result of fall out of non payment negotiations were held between parties wherein Respondent Nos.).Recall of witness .. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (KERALA) (FB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 798 (KERALA) (FB) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Choodappa).). (S. Vs S. 1881. Chandigarh). 1881.C.). (Gurmit Kaur Vs U. accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt . Govt..Notice issued again .Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the summoning order . 138-.K.C. Vs S.Cause of action arises only on receipt of second notice . 138-. 1881. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 982 .) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.T. 138-.Quashing of complaint on ground that complainant is not a holder in due course .Directors Pleading .Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .There must be an averment that the person who is vicariously liable for commission of the offence of the Company both was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company .. 138. Vs State.Cheque issued towards time barred debt .Cheque presented against and dishonoured again . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 693 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 833 (P&H) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Summoning order .Chairman or Director . Govt...) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Case pending before Court at Jaipur . (Everest Advertising Pvt. thus...Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Pleading . 1881.). outside the jurisdiction of the Court.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.Punjab and Haryana High Court can grant anticipatory bail for transitory period.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Application allowed. 1881.Limitation starts to run from receipt of second notice.Ltd.No ground to quash complaint. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 067 (P&H) #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. Vs State.Limitation .).Punjab and Haryana High Court granted transitory bail for 21 days . (Janeshwar Dutt Vs Sanjiv Kumar).Once the cheque is issued.Notice issued but received back with endorsement `no such addressee' .Time barred debt is also valid consideration.C.Company .Ramankutty & Anr. there is no doubt that ingredients of S.2 and 3 took part . 138-. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.Dishonour of cheque .Company . 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Parameshwarappa & Anr. (Anil Kumar Jaiswal Vs State & Anr. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S. (Meenakshi Sathish (Mrs.Puran Chand).Recall of order .Bank witness produced but through oversight the dishonoured cheque and memo issued by Bank not exhibited .Dishonour of cheque .Parameshwarappa & Anr. (Rajkumar Vs Smt.P.).138 of the Act is not attracted. (T.N.Dishonour of cheque .40.No reason to interfere in the order of acquittal. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 798 (M. 1881.entrusted to brother of complainant Agreement reduced to writing .Dishonour of cheque .Choodappa).Every error is not justification for invoking revisional powers .Dishonour of cheque .Cheque issued in . 138-. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 759 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1025 (KERALA) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.P.Blank cheque theory Cheque signed by drawer .S.Firm .P.. (V..Cheque drawn and handed over to brother of complainant could not have been made use of by the complainant.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 888 (M.Permissible only when debt or liability is disputed by accused and existence of account books/papers is admitted by complainant.Unless the alleged infraction of procedure resulted in miscarriage of justice.K.). Bangalore Vs D..Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 524 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 942 (KAR) : 2007 CLC 1004 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 199 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 501 : 2007(53) ALLINDCAS 576 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 801 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 131 #16: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque of Rs. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 782 (M.Dishonour of cheque .At the fag end of trial. 1881.Revision . 138-.Prosecution of Chairman and Director of Company . 138-. 1881.Not proper to dismiss complaint ..Dishonour of cheque . revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. as true and correct .Dishonour of cheque . (Ganesh Enterprises.Premature complaint .. (S.Gunmala & Ors.. 1881.(ALLAHABAD) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Shivadas Vs Ramanath Shetty & Anr. (Rajeev Soni Vs Indresh Singh).Dismissal of complaint on ground of non production of invoices relating to sales of goods held.Drawer cannot get absolved of the liability u/s 138 of the Act.Drawer admitting balance amount shown as due in running account.Company .R.. (Virender Singh Vs Laxmi Narain & Anr. 1881. not proper . 138-. 138-. unless the complainant has a case that accused did not honour the agreement and that consequent on that his brother had handed over the cheque and thus he became a holder in due course .Ramankutty & Anr.Legally enforceable debt or liability .Accused liable to conviction.) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Recall of complainant for cross examination when the case was at the stage of pronouncement of judgment ..Consideration . 000/. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . (Madamuttathil Abdul Razak Vs M.).Concurrent finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court that accused were in charge of and were responsible to company for conduct of its business Such finding needs no interference in revision.).Yousaf).Unnikrishnan Vs T.Dishonour of cheque . Vs S.Complaint should be kept pending till the ripening of cause of action or complaint to be returned with an advice to the complainant for presentation after completion of necessary statutory period.No offence is made out u/s 138 of the Act . 138-.Cheque issued in discharge of liability arising out of an agreement void ab initio Provision of S. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138-..Not clear as to what type of questions are necessary to be put to the complainant .Cheque filled up by some other person putting the date and amount .Production of books of account maintained by complainant . (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem). 138-. 1881.) #17: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Transaction relating to cheque not as alleged in complaint .Sarala). reopening of trial cannot be permitted and complainant cannot be recalled for cross examination. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 750 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 2039 (DELHI) : 2007 CRILJ 2262 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 765 : 2006(135) DLT 273 : 2007(2) KERLJ 31 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 747 (KARNATAKA) #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Holder in due course Partnership business dissolved . 1881. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Parameshwarappa & Anr.Drawer of cheque regular customer and purchasing goods on credit . Complaint against firm and its five partners .Delay of 3 days in filing complaint.Once the cheque is issued. 138.Notice issued in itself defective .. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt.This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of the Act . (Rathikumar Vs Santhamma).T. 141-. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand).Dishonour of cheque .Condonation ..Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan .name of firm but complaint filed by a firm different from the one in whose name cheque was issued . Vs S. Chandigarh).) 0150 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0001 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0446 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0699 : 1994 (79) COMP. 138.Jurisdiction . 1881.Delay can be condoned only on issuance of notice to accused. 138-.Cheque will continue to be one issued for discharge of liability as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act. 1881. Section 138(a)-.Company . rightly dismissed.Bhojarajan).C. 1881. 138. 1881. Section 138(a)-. Vs M/s. (Gurmit Kaur Vs U. Ltd.Case pending before Court at Jaipur .Ltd. 141-.. 138-.Notice issued by firm which was different from the one in whose name cheque was issued .) 2006 KAR 3771 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 498 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Accused living at Chandigarh . the person accused was in charge of.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Post dated cheque becomes a cheque under the Act on the date which is written on the said cheque and the six months period is to be reckoned from the said date. Vs S. held.Dishonour of Cheque . (S. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 024 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 210 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2643 : 2007(3) AKAR 423 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 865 : 2006(4) KERLT 308 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque or instrument must be said to have been drawn on the date it bears for purposes of computation of period of its validity even though it was drawn or prepared on a different date. (Anil Kumar Sawhney Vs Gulshan Rai).). (M.Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed.Bhojarajan).) 0468 #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Entire proceedings vitiated on this ground alone. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (S.). 139-. 1881.No ground made out to quash the proceedings.Complaint filed through power of attorney holder ...Dishonour of cheque .Parameshwarappa & Anr. requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.Authority letter or power of attorney whereby attorney was authorised to file complaint on behalf of company not filed . and responsible for the conduct of business of the company .Venkateswara Rao Vs Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors.Complaint. Ltd. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 812 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 103 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 725 (KAR.) : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand).) : 2007 CRILJ 482 : 2007(2) ALJ 313 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 182 : 2006(48) ALLINDCAS 717 : ILR(KANT.Transitory bail ...Cheque issued towards time barred debt .Choodappa).Dishonour of Cheque .P. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Post dated cheque . 138-.Without this averment in complaint. Vs S. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.`Drawn' .Punjab and Haryana High Court granted transitory bail for 21 days .Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm . CASES 0150 : 1993 (3) CRIMES 1064 : 1994 (1) KLT 0111 : 1993 (6) JT 0280 : 1994 (1) SLJ . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt .Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A..Punjab and Haryana High Court can grant anticipatory bail for transitory period.Company Complaint against company and its Directors .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 067 (P&H) #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Time barred debt is also valid consideration. 1881.. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0038 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL. .It is promissory note payable otherwise than on demand .Need not be in a particular form.Promissory note .). (H. 20-.) : 2007 AIHC 1302 : 2007(1) AIRKAR R 340 : 2007(1) KANTLJ 200 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held. (P. Section 4-.Promissory notes .Admissible in evidence on payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty.P.Evaluation of possibilities for the defendant to borrow the amount. Section 4-.Promissory note . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (MADRAS) #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Dontham Sulochana)... (M.Parthasarathy Vs Bank of Baroda & Anr.Promissory note . (Permualla Mallesham Vs Chennamaneni Sumanya & Ors.A. 1881.Material alterations-(1) .Instrument in question attested by a witness and not payable to order or bearer .Execution .S..).Partnership firm Liability of retired partner .Promissory note .Such instrument if insufficiently stamped cannot be validated by payment of penalty and the same is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose. (Govindammal & Anr. Section 4-. 118-..Six months period specified for repayment . (Canara Bank Vs Vara Trading Company & Ors. 87-.Pronote .Payee's name . 1881.) : AIR 2006 A. Section 4.).. 92 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 508 : 2006(54) ALLCRIC 11 SOC : 2006(37) ALLINDCAS 334 : 2005(6) ANDHLD 211 : 2005(6) ANDHLT 789 : 2006 BANKJ 205 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. person who had executed promissory note is jointly and severally liable to discharge debt thereunder irrespective of whether he continues to be partner of firm or ceased to be partner or that firm has ceased to exist. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 4-.Ravindran Vs M.). 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 141 (A.Rajamanickam). 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881..Execution not proved .Signed by maker promising to repay the amount borrowed to lender without interest immediately after Deepavali or Ugadi Held.Said witness not examined .Venkatamma & Anr.Nothing to show that said heirs though related to maker have inherited his estate so as to become liable to repay his debts . Section 4. 5-. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 692 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 311 (KAR.P.. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (A.When a document falls within definition of two deeds then duty payable higher is chargeable .P.Stamp duty chargeable is duty payable on Bond being highest of the duty. 1881.P.Promissory note or bond .Proof Burden rests upon plaintiff to prove promissory note in all respects .) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (A. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (A. 1881.Promissory note executed by partners of firm .Pronote .(1) : 1993 LW (CRL. Section 4.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors. Vs Bhuvaneswari Financing Corporation). (Allani Lingaiah Vs Paidimarri Sathya Babu. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar).Does not amount to alteration as statute itself provides for such a course to be adopted when said document is left blank.One of partner denying his liability thereunder on ground that he had since retired from firm and liability has to be met by reconstituted firm .Suit not maintainable.Merely because the document bears the signatures of executant it does not amount to accepting the liability in view of specific denial of execution of promissory note and acknowledgement of debt. or his necessities do not have any role to play in this regard.Payee can enter his name later on . 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (KARNATAKA) (DB) #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881.Containing signature of one witness but his name not mentioned .Stamp duty Document in question could be construed as a bond and also as a promissory note .Bond/promissory note .. Section 4. 1881.Pronote . 1881.Space left blank . 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 136 (MADRAS) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0641 : 1993 (6) JT 0280 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Sarpanch and Anr. Section 4-.Suit against legal heirs of borrower . (R. Section 4-. document in question is a bond and not promissory note .)..P. Trial Court disallowing part of the claim on the ground that the said amount was not shown in the statement of account . Section 4-. 1899.Document which is not a bill of exchange or promissory note. even if insufficiently stamped can be admitted in evidence on payment of penal stamp duty. does not put end to such authority . 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (KERALA) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act... Section 4-. 118-. Section 4-. at once of forthwith. 1881. no.2(22). 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Promissory note .P. 1881. (Alikunju Hamsa Vs Varghese George).endorsement on reverse that interest need not be paid if amount is paid within one month . 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 Negotiable Instruments Act. (Stamp Act.. 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 183 (KERALA) #11: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Containing signature of one witness but his name not mentioned .Tests to determine (i) Is the sum to be paid a sum of money and is that sum certain? (ii) Is the payment to be made to or to order of a person who is certain or to the bearer of the instrument? (iii) Has the maker signed the document? (iv) Is the promise to pay made in the instrument the substance of the instrument? and (v) Did the parties intend that the document should be a promissory note? (Sankaran Namboodiripad Vs Vijayan).. (Stamp Act.`on demand' means debt is due and payable immediately.Ramdas & Ors. (Kundan Mal Vs Nand Kishore). 2(5)(b).). Section 4..2(22)..). 1881.Held.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.Merely because the document bears the signatures of executant it does not amount to accepting the liability in view of specific denial of execution of promissory note and .Essential requisites `Promise'. 1881.Promissory note . Section 20. (Sankaran Namboodiripad Vs Vijayan). (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal). 1881.Addition of parties (2) Adding Stamps and signatures (3) Correction in signatures and writings Are all material alterations.. S. Section 4-. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 82 (RAJASTHAN) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Alikunju Hamsa Vs Varghese George)..) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 4-. 1881.Whether affect the character of the instrument as payable on demand .). (Jawahar Trading Corporation Vs K. not sufficient to declare that document is not a promissory note.Age of ink in signature and body of pronote .However.Pronote .Execution not proved .Plea of signatures obtained on blank paper . 1881.If it is attested by witnesses it will not make the same any less a promissory note if the instrument is made payable to order or bearer. S. 4-. it would be just and proper exercise of discretion to send the document to Handwriting Expert for his opinion as regards the age of inks in signature and body of pronote. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (BOMBAY) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (H. 19-. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 169 (A.Promissory note . Section 19.Payee's name left blank Person to whom it is delivered can fill his name or of any person as payee . 1881.Said witness not examined . (Bank of Baroda Vs Pandurang Bala Saheb Nalavade & Ors.`Promissory note' .K.Promissory note is not re-quired to be attested . absence of word.Held. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal).. 1881. (Penumastha Ramachandra Raju Vs Gaddam Raja Sekhar Reddy). death of executant of such inchoate instrument. Section 4-.Such authority being statutory and also coupled with interest.Promissory note . Section 4.. Section 4-. 2(5)(b). 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 527 (KERALA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1899. legal representatives of executant are not precluded to contend that person holding pronote has no such authority.S. 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (KERALA) #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Pronote .Held. 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. if it otherwise satisfies the mandatory requirement of a promise to pay to the order or bearer.Promissory note .Presence of default clause by itself will not make a document not a promissory note..Loan advanced on execution of promissory note and mortgage deed . Section 4-. clerical lapse cannot wipe out contractual liability flowing from promissory note and mortgage deed. (Canara Bank Vs Vara Trading Company & Ors.Promissory note .Rajamanickam). 87-.Dishonour of pay order .acknowledgement of debt.endorsement on reverse that interest need not be paid if amount is paid within one month . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (MADRAS) #2: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Jawahar Trading Corporation Vs K.. (Iram Feroz Vs Ayaz Gadhiya). transferred. 1881. 124. Section 138. no.) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.K. Section 6.Promissory notes .. (H. 1881.Material alterations-(1) Addition of parties (2) Adding Stamps and signatures (3) Correction in signatures and writings Are all material alterations. Section 4. Section 4.. 5-. 7-.Does not amount to alteration as statute itself provides for such a course to be adopted when said document is left blank. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (BOMBAY) : 1999 .S.) ISJ (BANKING) 0762 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. Section 4. 19-.Payee can enter his name later on .Cheque .Rajamanickam). limited. 20-..Instrument must be in writing and the instrument includes every document by which any right or liability is. Section 138. 13-. 1881.It is promissory note payable otherwise than on demand .Is not a cheque .Ravindran Vs M. Vs Cherian). 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Does not make it non transferable . (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal). or purports to be.). extended. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 607 (M.Space left blank . 1881.Pay order . 124.. 1990 CIVIL COURT 241 (KERALA) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.Suit on basis of dishonoured cheque ..Pronote .Suit is maintainable as a summary suit.. Section 6-. 5.Pay order . 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Krishna Devi Vs Firm Tikayaram Lekhraj Batra). 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (KARNATAKA) (DB) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (R. 5-. Section 5-.Payee's name . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (MADRAS) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (R.Pronote . 1881. created. Section 4.Scoring of the word `bearer' . 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 717 (BOMBAY) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 6.It is promissory note payable otherwise than on demand .Such instrument if insufficiently stamped cannot be validated by payment of penalty and the same is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose.Six months period specified for repayment .. 1881.Six months period specified for repayment .Such instrument if insufficiently stamped cannot be validated by payment of penalty and the same is inadmissible in evidence for any purpose.Provision is not attracted..Ramdas & Ors. 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 183 (KERALA) #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Is not a .).Explanation (1) .Promissory notes . (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab & Sind Bank).Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors. 5. Section 4. 1881. 6.2001 (SUPP.Ravindran Vs M.George & Bros..Types of 'Hundis' Essentials .Whether affect the character of the instrument as payable on demand .Endorsee becomes a holder in due course. extinguished or recorded and it should be signed by the maker and there must be an order to pay.Bill of exchange .P. (M. 7-. 1881. 1881. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (BOMBAY) : 1999 .Pronote .Whether affect the character of the instrument as payable on demand .) ISJ (BANKING) 0762 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Promissory note . 1881.endorsement on reverse that interest need not be paid if amount is paid within one month ...) CIVIL COURT CASES 100 (A.Scoring of the word `bearer' .Provision is not attracted. Section 6.S.Cheque . (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab & Sind Bank)...Dishonour of pay order . 15-.130 of Transfer of Property Act .Promissory note . 4-.Held. 20-.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors..Word `Assigned' used in endorsement made on the back of pronote be understood as a direction to pay the amounts mentioned therein to or to the order of a specified person .. Section 4. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal).P. Section 16-.Endorsee becomes a holder in due course. 19-. Vs Cherian).cheque .`on demand' means debt is due and payable immediately.Pronote in which no time for payment is specified is one payable on demand. 1881.. 1881. Section 19. 13-. Section 15-. (M.Does not amount to alteration as statute itself provides for such a course to be adopted when said document is left blank.George & Bros. there can be assignment only of a debt and not assignment of any promissory note .Endorsement .Amount in figures and words different Amount sta #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. no.. (M/s Mulji Mehta and Sons and others Vs C. 13-. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT .`on demand' means debt is due and payable immediately.It is an endorsement in full falling under Section 16 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and not a transfer of any actionable claim falling under S.Endorsee becomes a holder in due course. 1997 (SUPPL. 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Scoring of the word `bearer' . 1881. (State Bank of India Vs Smt.. (H. 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held. 1881..Explanation (1) . at once of forthwith.George & Bros. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (GAUHATI) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 4-.Real intention is only endorsement of pronotes in favour of plaintiff though the word `assigned' is used. (Seethalakshmi Ammal Vs T.Endorsement and consequential Passing of the property in the pronote made subject to certain conditions Indorsee not fulfilling those conditions .Payee can enter his name later on . Section 18-. (M. Section 6. Section 19-.Cheque . 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.An endorsement of repayment on the promissory note cannot be said to be a negotiable instrument. 1881.Negotiable instrument . (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal).Intention be gathered from words actually used in endorsement . Section 13-. (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal). (Sreenivasan Vs Subbarama Sastrikal).Payee's name ..) #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.There is no valid transfer.There must be a clear indication to make the payment by endorser to endorsee.). (Santhamma Vs Devaki Amma). 1881. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (KERALA) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Promissory note .. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 661 (MADRAS) #1: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sainam Ningol Thambal Devi).Explanation (1) . 1881. Section 4.2001 (SUPP. 1990 CIVIL COURT 241 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Does not make it non transferable .Pronote . 1881. at once of forthwith.Srinivasa Naicker). Vs Cherian). 1990 CIVIL COURT 241 (KERALA) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Space left blank .Mohan Krishna). 1988 CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 50. 1881. Section 19.Does not make it non transferable . 1881.Philip).Blank cheque . 27-. Section 20.Payee's name left blank Person to whom it is delivered can fill his name or of any person as payee . 1881.Alexander & Anr. they don't require any stamp under the Stamp Act in force.S. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.T. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 20.Alexander & Anr.. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C. Section 138.So far as the cheques are concerned. he gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his choice. (T.However. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.).) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 .Once the promisor signs the promissory note format. death of executant of such inchoate instrument. 20-. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar).Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Adducing evidence in support of defence is a valuable right .Deshmukh & Anr. does not put end to such authority .Undated cheque .Deshmukh & Anr.Muralidhar). 1881. Section 20-.S. 20-.Pronote .. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 986 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 871 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 522 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 857 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 257 : 2006(43) ALLINDCAS 713 : 2006 BANKJ 26 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 2054 : 2006(4) KANTLJ 10 #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 4-.20 of the Act confers only a prima facie right. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar).Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.. 1881. 118-.Negotiable Instruments Act. 20-. it becomes inchoate document and thereupon the promisee may fill it up and file a suit.Promissory note .Held.Notice issued and complaint filed by Advocate on instructions given by Power of attorney holder of payee and not by payee himself Not illegal.R..) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S. it becomes inchoate document and thereupon the promisee may fill it up and file a suit.Dishonour of cheque .C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Pronote .However.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 20. legal representatives of executant are not precluded to contend that person holding pronote has no such authority.). (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.S. Section 20-.).C...Joseph Vs I.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.Estoppel from denying the liability under the cheque issued . (K.20 of the Act does not apply because S. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K. 1881. does not put end to such authority .Payee's name left blank Person to whom it is delivered can fill his name or of any person as payee . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138. Section 27-.Holder in due course can fill up the blanks and negotiate the instrument.Nagappa Vs Y. death of executant of such inchoate instrument.Cheque . 1881. (H.Once the promisor signs the promissory note format. that S. 1881.Such authority being statutory and also coupled with interest.Such authority being statutory and also coupled with interest. (H. 1881..Mani Vs Elumalai). Section 20.20 applies only with regard to incohate negotiable instruments .). 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (MADRAS) #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). Section 138. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).. 118-..Accused moved an application for sending the cheque to handwriting expert .Promissory note . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL..Provision is applicable to civil as well as criminal liabilities under the Act. 4-.Srinivasa Vs Girijamma & Ors.Blank . 1881.V..Allowed.When a drawer deliver a signed cheque.Promissory note . Section 138. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 224 (KERALA) #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It is open to a person to sign and deliver a blank or incomplete cheque and is equally open for the holder of cheque to fill up blanks and specify the amount therein.Dishonour of cheque .C. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S. (C. legal representatives of executant are not precluded to contend that person holding pronote has no such authority. that too conditional upon the holder of a negotiable instrument . .610/.Pronote .Pronote .Civil case not withdrawn .However. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (MADRAS) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Legally enforceable debt Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil case . Section 138. 1881.Cheque issued before amount given by complainant .Held.43 of the Act comes into play.Jurisdiction Territorial jurisdiction is governed by provisions of Act for presentation of negotiable instruments .) 2005(3) KER.Grant of damages of Rs. (Indian Overseas Bank Vs M/s Bismilla Trading Co. Section 31-.Indorsement .Wrongful dishonour of cheque by Bank Damages .One of the executant admitted his signature and signature of other defendant a forgery .1 lakh for loss of reputation is not excessive in view of the fact that plaintiff has been carrying on business in large scale affecting its reputation.. (Pandurang Vs Akola District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd.e.Rights and liabilities arise only under completed instrument. 1881. 139.No decree can be passed against the defendant who admitted his signature as the promissory note itself is vitiated by forgery .2500/. 1881.12 lacs as against sanctioned limit of 15 lakhs .There is no valid transfer..as general damages is proper.Dishonour of cheque .Lending of money .Plea regarding absence of consideration It is very relevant in suits based on negotiable instruments because absence of consideration makes the instrument unenforceable. 15-.. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 601 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2005 BOM 236 : 2005(2) BANKCLR 405 : 2005(4) BANKCAS 218 : 2005(2) BOMCR 599 : 2005(4) CIVLJ 619 : 2005(2) MAHLJ 521 : 2005(2) RECCIVR 288 1: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 43-.). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Indorsement of promissory note cannot be treated as part of cause of action u/s 20(c) of CPC Holder in due course cannot entertain suit in Court at a place where indorsement on instrument . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (GAUHATI) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.2 lacs . withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. 1881.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.from account of account holder .Can file a complaint. account holder is entitled to damages without proof of special loss or damages . 1881. Section 138. 43-.. & Anr. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (KERALA) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.#3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. in case cheque is issued in anticipation of lending money but money is not given to the borrower then consideration fails and S. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI. 1881.Award of Rs. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 610 (KERALA) : AIR 2005 KERALA 124 : 2006(1) AKAR(NOC) 50 (KER) : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 343 : 2005(32) ALLINDCAS 410 : 2005(3) BANKCAS 430 : 2006 BANKJ 603 : 2005(4) CIVLJ 708 : ILR (KER) 2005(1) KER 291 KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 31-.. 1881. 27-. Section 68. (Krishnankutty Vs Velayudhan). (Santhamma Vs Devaki Amma).Plaintiff's cash credit account showed debit balance of about Rs. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.Bank wrongfully dishonoured cheque and illegally debited Rs.. 1881. when cheque is issued for some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet another promise i.Plaintiff issued three cheques amounting to about Rs.Alexander & Anr.Pronote .) 562 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER. (George Vs Kamarudeen). 1881.Endorsement and consequential Passing of the property in the pronote made subject to certain conditions Indorsee not fulfilling those conditions . Section 138..Held. Section 50.).. Section 46-.). (State Bank of India Vs Smt. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Cheque is one issued in discharge of the debt or liability coming u/s 138 of the Act . 70-. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala). Section 43-.Sainam Ningol Thambal Devi).Power of attorney holder . .Material alterations-(1) Addition of parties (2) Adding Stamps and signatures (3) Correction in signatures and writings Are all material alterations. 1881.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 608 (A. Section 80-. (Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan Vs Radhakrishnan).).Once the date is shown on the cheque.Cheque given towards repayment of loan . Section 87-. 1989 CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (RAJASTHAN) #1: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Mohan Vs Basavaraju). the burden is on the drawer of the cheque that the payee has no authority to do so.S.Material alteration .P. 87-.K.34 CPC.Agreement between parties not to charge interest . 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 183 (KERALA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Thankachan Vs Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.Prasad Vs Y. HCR 990 : 2003(1) ALL IND CAS 321 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 237 : 2003(2) ICC 930 : ILR (KANT. 1881.Ramdas & Ors.). Section 82-.takes place. 1881. Vs M/s Jaitu Steel Tubes Pvt.Cheque .When suit is filed interest payable at 18% per annum is only upto date of institution of suit .However.Material alteration . Section 4.It is discretion of court to award contractual rate of interest or award a lesser rate of interest .) #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 125 (CALCUTTA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 80-..Interest . 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 406 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2003 KANT. 1881. interest till realization of the decretal amount.).Putting a date on the cheque by the payee will not amount to material alteration rendering the instrument void.V.In the instant case as the customer had a current account as such Bank is not liable to pay any interest on the amount which is liable to pay to customer.Interest pendente lite .) : 2006(5) ALJ (EE) 673 : 2006(44) ALLINDCAS 737 : 2006(2) KERLJ 679 : 2006(3) KLT 53 : 2006(4) RECCIVR 392 1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138. & Anr.. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 370 (H. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 657 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 DOC 6 (KER.). Section 87-. (Babulal Agarwal Vs State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur).P. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 759 (A.Ltd.The maker.Cheque ..Requirement u/s 82 of the Act . (Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan Vs Radhakrishnan). Section 79-. 37 : 2004(22) ALLINDCAS 697 : 2004(5) ANDHLD 57 : 2004(5) ANDHLT 814 : 2005(1)BANKCLR 557 : 2005(1) BANKCAS 330 : 2005(1) CIVLJ 145 #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..The emphasis must be placed on the words 'makes payment'. 1881. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 160 (BOMBAY) CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 556 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (P.Interest from date of filing of suit is not covered by S. (Rajendra Kumar Vs Keshari Chand). 1881.Pronote .Debtor is liable to pay interest as envisaged u/s 80 of the Act.Cheque dishonoured . (S..Suresh Kumar & Anr.80 NI Act but is governed by S.) 2003(1) KAR 931 : 2003(3) KANT LJ 138 : 2003(4) REC CIV R 13 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881..P.Interest . (Jawahar Trading Corporation Vs K. 1881.). Section 85-.Dishonoured . acceptor or endorser 'makes payment' .Future interest Court is required to grant future interest also i.Held.Holder of the undated cheque has got the implied authority to put the date on the cheque .Forged bearer cheque Liability of Bank Unless Bank proves that customer had knowledge of such forgery it cannot escape its liability and is bound to make good the loss ..Cheque . 213 : 2003 AIR KANT.Suit instituted on dishonour of cheque . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 556 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.e. 1881. agreement cases to bind parties .Subsequent insertion of amount and name of payee without consent of drawer amounts to material alteration rendering the instrument void as in the absence of certainty regarding the amount and the payee at the time of issue of cheque the cheque cannot be said to be a valid one .) : AIR 2005 A. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (KERALA) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT . Section 80-.. 1881. subsequent putting of date in an undated cheque would not always amount to material alteration.Ltd. 87-. (Rajesh Varma Vs Aminex Holdings & Investments & Ors.P.Plaintiff is entitled to interest at rate of 18% per annum on outstanding amount of cheque from date of dishonour till realisation of amount. (Chanana Steel Tubes Pvt. (Capital Syndicate Vs Jameela).. Promissory note .Statutory presumption of passing consideration as provided u/s 118 of the Act cannot be drawn.Held. 87-. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (M.Execution . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Canara Bank Vs Vara Trading Company & Ors.Contention of defendant that he had only signed on the stamp and rest of the document was blank ..Attesting witnesses not examined . Section 118-. 390 : 2005(1) KLJ 296 #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (A.Pronote . 118-.P.. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 677 (MADRAS) #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.It is material alteration which amounts to cancellation of the instrument .Basavana Goud). Section 20.A firm having current account with a Bank .Bank not informing the firm and after five years bank appropriating the amount lying to the credit of the firm .Signatures admitted Statutory presumption u/s 118 of the Act operates. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (KARNATAKA) (DB) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.) 2005(1) KER.Cheques subsequently dishonoured/lost .) #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Signatures admitted Circumstances explained under which promissory note was signed . (Ramachandran Vs Dinesan). (Manapragada Krishna Murthy Vs M/s Savani Transport Pvt.Execution denied .Presumption Promissory note alleged to be executed under coercion and not voluntary .Pronote . 1881. Section 118-.Consideration .Does not tantamount to proof of execution of promissory note . Section 118-. plaintiff has failed to prove the case of execution of pronote and payment of consideration.Sesha Reddy Vs T.Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.). 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 197 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 353 : 2005 CRI LJ 1237 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 666 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 667 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI.Criminal prosecution cannot be launched on it. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar).Merely because the document bears the signatures of executant it does not amount to accepting the liability in view of specific denial of execution of promissory note and acknowledgement of debt.Execution of pronote and receipt if proved then there is presumption of passing of consideration . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 044 (P&H) #5: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Such an admission cannot be construed as an admission of execution of the pronote..Correction in amount of cheque without consent of maker of cheque . Section 118-.To disprove the presumption defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances..Promissory note .Execution duly . upon consideration of which Court may either believe that the consideration did not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would. 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (KARNATAKA) #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. it becomes inchoate document and thereupon the promisee may fill it up and file a suit. 1881. Section 118-. (State Bank of India Vs M/s Jackson Maye & Co..Consideration . & Anr. Section 4.Once the promisor signs the promissory note format. 1881.. Section 118-. 118-.Scribe of pronote in his evidence stated that defendant was not present when he filled up the blank pronote and no consideration was paid in his presence .. Section 118-.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 990 (A. (C.If execution is proved there is presumption of consideration .).).P. 1881. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (DELHI) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Firm lost its remedy to recover the amount from owner .Basavana Goud).When execution is admitted there is presumption of consideration . (Shyamrao Vs Champalal s/o Suklal Kunabi).Pronote and receipt .Pronote . Section 138. Ltd.Execution not proved ..Plaintiff is not further required to prove his capacity to make the payment at the time of execution of the pronote and receipt. Section 92.Cheque .).) 177 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 289 : 2005 BANK J 571 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 371 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 457 : 2005(2) ICC 441 : ILR(KER.Pronote .Sesha Reddy Vs T..P. 1881. (Ganapathy Thevar Vs Shanmuga Thevar).Said witness not examined .Containing signature of one witness but his name not mentioned .. (C.Action of bank not lawful. 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (KARNATAKA) #9: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Bank purchasing cheques from firm and crediting the account of the firm . under the circumstances of the case.Promissory note . (Jit Singh Vs Nachhatar Singh & Ors.Promissory note . 1881.. shall act upon the plea that it did not exist.) #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. Under Section 118(a). Section 118-.) #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.No pleading by plaintiff that amount was paid by wife as authorised agent Evidence without pleading in that respect is inadmissible .) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (A. 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (P&H) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138.Payment by cheque is indicative that it is issued to extinguish an existing debt and not to create a new one .Signature on cheque admitted .Promissory note . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT .Suit having been filed beyond three years from date of pronote is barred by time. 1881.Venkatamma & Anr. Section 138.This plea was established by production of account books and proof of its entries . 1881.. Section 138.) 0257 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL. & Anr.P. 1881.Endorsement does not save limitation . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL. 118(g). Section 118-. 139. (Reddi Varamaiah Vs Pereddi Nagi Reddy). 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 224 (KERALA) #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 35 (A. (Muhammedkutty Vs Abdulla).P.P. 000/. there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration .T. 000/.Arises only if execution of document is proved .) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 : 1998 (1) KLT 0384 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.No presumption can be drawn u/s 118 Negotiable Instruments Act as to valid payment .Mere admission of signature on document do not prove execution..There is presumption under S. (Harnek Singh Vs Surjit Singh).) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Promissory note .K.Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.. 1881.P. 118-.It is open to the plaintiff to establish that the payment of the amount by cheque was in fact a loan.).Alleged to have been made by wife of defendant . Section 118-. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Presumption . Section 118-.Presumption .Presumption .It is for the defendant to rebut that presumption if he pleads forgery.Endorsement on pronote fabricated document created only to save limitation . 1881.This presumption is. 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 675 (MADRAS) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (A.Plaintiff failed to prove that wife of defendant had authority to make the payment . however.Songappa Gounder Vs K.).Endorsement on pronote ..Dishonour of cheque Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones .No evidence to show cordial relations between husband and wife .15. 118(a)-.Rebuttal . 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 116 (KERALA) : AIR 2002 KER.).Court below rightly accepted defence plea as presumption is rebutted. Section 118-.V.Muthusamy & Anr..Ltd.P. Vs Dontham Sulochana).Presumption available u/ss 138.Defendants must prove the non-existence of consideration so probable that a reasonable man would subscribe to that view .is yet to be paid .proved .J.Bearer cheque Dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds .Burden lies on plaintiff to prove that it is an authorised payment on behalf of defendant to save limitation . 1881. (C.was already paid and Rs.Joseph Vs I. (P.If execution is proved there is presumption of consideration .) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 118-. 92 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 508 : 2006(54) ALLCRIC 11 SOC : 2006(37) ALLINDCAS 334 : 2005(6) ANDHLD 211 : 2005(6) ANDHLT 789 : 2006 BANKJ 205 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (Kamala S. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (A..118(g) that holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course . 1881. rebuttable. 1881. 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions.C.5.There is presumption of consideration passed on to defendant at the time of execution of pronote and receipt. 9-.P.) : AIR 2006 A.Kondody). (Duggineni Seshagiri Rao Vs Kothapalli Venkateswara Rao).10. 139..Proof need not be restricted to evidence adduced by defendant Information elicited from the cross-examination of plaintiff's witnesses can also be taken into consideration.Philip). Vs Vidyadharan M..Rebuttal of presumption . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.Cheque . 000/out of which Rs. (S.. 227 : 2002(3) BANK CAS 9 : 2002(2) CUR CC 194 : 2002(1) KER LJ 435 : 2002(1) KER LT 669 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Defence plea that promissory note was executed as security for payment of Rs. Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque .Dishonour of cheque Consideration .Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant . 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.Dishonour of cheque Consideration .S. 1881. 1881.118 and 139 are only permissible presumptions in law from different perspectives . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.Dishonour of cheque Accused alleging misuse of cheque . (K. Section 139. 1881.Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note .. (P.Dishonour of cheque Presumption .118 .) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI. 138.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S. Section 139. is available it is not necessary at all to go back to the presumption u/s 118(a) of the Act.Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears .The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. Section 138.Nagappa Vs Y. Section 139.The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities .118 creates a presumption that drawer of a cheque is a debtor in respect of the amount of the cheque and drawee is the creditor .139 of the Act.. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes). 1881.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S. 118-..Signature on the cheque admitted .Presumption under S. (Gangadhara Panicker Vs Haridasan). 118-. 139. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER..Muralidhar).C. 118-.Execution denied .Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration . (Arvind Manekalal Tailor Vs State of Gujarat). Section 138. 1990 .) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.When presumption u/s 139 can be drawn it is superfluous and unnecessary to draw or bank on the presumption u/s 118 of the Act .S. opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. 1881. 138.It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence .Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration . (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram). 118(a)-.). (T. 1881.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #25: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Both presumptions are rebuttable.S.If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration .Cheque .) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S..As the graver presumption of existence of consideration of a specified variety.C.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Held. 1881.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted.N.). 118(a)-. Section 139.Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge of a liability already existing under the promissory note.Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability ...N.).139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability . 118-.139 creates a corresponding presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque Presumption created by Ss. 139.Rebuttal . 1881.R. (P. 118-.C.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.Only when due execution is established.Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. Section 138.C.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (GUJARAT) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Presumption .Dishonour of cheque Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note . 139. 118-. Initially plaintiff asserting cash consideration .. the plaintiff would invariably be held entitled to the benefit of presumption arising u/s 118 of the Act. opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing . (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.).) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 118(a)-.) : AIR 2008 SC 2898 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.If the defendant fails to discharge the initial onus of proof by showing he non-existence of the consideration.C.).Once execution is proved there is presumption of consideration . 1881. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 118(a)-.C. that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.): 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (S. (Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company Vs Amin Chand Payrelal). the onus would shift to the plaintiff to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument . presumption under S. Section 118(a)-. 139.) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Such presumption is rebuttable by a probable defence . & Anr..Presumption Rebuttal .Kondody)..C. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 556 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Consideration -Presumption . Section 138. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S. Section 138.C. 1881. Vs Palakurthi Ramakrishna Rao).Dishonour of cheque Accused alleging misuse of cheque . Section 118(a)-. 138.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 593 (S.Dishonour of cheque Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones .C.Cash cheque is a legal and valid negotiable instrument . 139.Burden upon defendant of proving the non-existence of consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities .Burden to prove consideration is on the plaintiff due to change of stands No proof of existence of past consideration .J.C.CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (KERALA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Consideration . 1881.Held. Vs Vidyadharan M.Consideration for suit pronote not supported on facts or law -First Appellate Court committed serious error of law by not appreciating evidence properly and by drawing inferences in regard to existence of past consideration which requires interference in second appeal .Appellate judgment set aside and ` suit dismissed.P.Cheque . 118-. (Putta Lakshmi Narayana Reddy Vs Putta Mysura Reddy).Once the defendant proves the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal.C. 1881..) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (S.. 1881.Onus shifts on plaintiff when defendant discharges the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful or the same was illegal .Promissory note ..Burden of proving want of consideration or part consideration lies on executant..Non mentioning of payee's name and the striking off the words `or bearer' does not make the cheque invalid.118 arises that it is supported by consideration until the contrary is proved.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (S. (Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao Vs Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 314 (A. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 637 (S.Execution when proved/admitted consideration is to be presumed . Section 118(a)-.P.Presumption Pronote .). 118(1)-.The defendant can prove the non-existence of consideration by raising a probable defence .Subsequently asserting past consideration Both pleas denied .Pronote .) : 1999(2) REC CIV R 615 : 1999(2) SUPREME 187 : 1999(3) SCC 35 : AIR 1999 SC 1008 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.The burden upon the defendant of proving the non-existence of the consideration can be either direct or by bringing on record the preponderance of probabilities by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. 1881.C. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 703 (A.): 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (S.Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Execution if proved it is to be presumed that it is supported by a consideration .Once the execution of the cheque is admitted. (Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan Vs Radhakrishnan). Section 118(a)-.139 of the Act. 118-. 1881. (Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao Vs Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors.Consideration ..) : AIR 2008 SC 2898 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (S.Mere denial that no consideration had passed is not sufficient to rebut the presumption and something probable had to be bought on record to prove the non-existence of consideration. (Kamala S.C.) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 637 (S. (Bollini Bhogeswara Rao & Ors..Pronote . . (M/s V. 139.C.Complaint . Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. burden shifts to defendant to disprove it . 138-. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S. 1881. 1881.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ranjit Ray & Anr.C. Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation).R.V. collection of the amount and allowing encashment the next day without verification . (Ponuganti Subba Rao Vs Sikhakollu Pulla Rao).Kondody).Summoning order cannot be quashed on this ground .Initial burden lies on the holder of the promissory note to prove its execution .).The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities .) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 : 1998 (1) KLT 0384 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Defendant having failed to discharge his burden. Section 118(g)-. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. Section 138.This presumption is. Section 137-.Plea that goods were rejected and complainant was not entitled to get the cheque encashed .Magistrate has no option but to acquit accused unless he chooses to adjourn the proceeding to some other date.P. decree passed by lower Court is sustainable. & Anr. presentation of cheque..P.) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Enterprises & Anr.C. there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration .Plaintiff having discharged his initial burden the same shifted to defendant to prove his plea that the document was forged .. 138-. 138-..Bearer cheque Dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds . Vs Pukharaj Jain). (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration . 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.Dishonour of cheque Consideration .Not entitled to the protection.Non appearance of complainant on date fixed for appearance of accused .Muralidhar).Protection under section 131 Negligence in permitting to open account. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572 (ORISSA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ORISSA) 0570 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0080 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0110 : 1997 (1) CCR 0475 : 1996 (2) OCR 0360 : 1996 CULT 0528 : 1996 (2) OLR 0412 #1: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability .118(g) that holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course . 1881. Section 138. 1881. Vs M/s Bansal Industries).evidence in rebuttal.Summary trial .It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence . 9-.Once execution is proved.) 0257 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S. (Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.Pronote . (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram). 118(g).There is presumption under S.Provision of S.Summoning order Quashing of .482 Cr.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Plaintiff proved execution of pronote by examining himself and a witness . (T.It is for the complainant to prove that change in the date was made with the consent of accused.Quashing of complaint . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 062 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 120 (ALLAHABAD) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. applies .Presumption . Section 131-.Rebuttal .Dishonour of cheque . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138-.Complaint . 1881. rebuttable.Under Section 118(a).C. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 524 (A.Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.Non .Matters which are to be agitated during trial cannot be gone into for the purpose of quashment of a proceedings under S.Dishonour of cheque ..Nagappa Vs Y.Change in date .).Dishonour of cheque . 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (KERALA) #1: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1881.P.Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant . 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 917 (P&H) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (P&H) #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL. 118(a)-.P..Burden of proof . 1881.. (Kannur District Co-operative Bank Ltd.256 Cr. however.Plea is available at the time of defence. 1881.C. Narayanan). (Kapil Aggarwal Vs Raghu Vias).2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.Complaint founded on this demand notice is not maintainable.Notice . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 073 (MADRAS) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Maharaja Developers & Anr.Accused acquitted Complainant had right to file special leave to appeal to High Court u/s 378(4) . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 184 (MADRAS) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 221 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Bodapati Naga Krishna Gandhi Vs Sri Ilapakurthi Sri Ramulu & Anr.). taking cognizance is barred .Endorsement on cheque `sans recourse' ..appearance of complainant on date fixed for appearance of accused . 138-. to continue the proceedings .138 of the Act . 1881. 1881. 145-. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (DELHI) #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint Issuance of process .Appeal against . 1881..Order taking cognizance not liable to be quashed . 142.No ground to quash the proceedings.P. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 672 (CALCUTTA) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (CALCUTTA) .) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 271 (A.P.Appeal/Revision cannot be dismissed for non deposit of amount of fine. 1881. 138. 138-.Notice .P.Held.Dishonour of cheque .Salvi Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.. (Asif Akbani Vs P.). his general power of attorney holder. 138-. 138-.. (Chhedi Lal Gupta Vs Shri Suresh Damani & Anr.. (Vinay Kumar Vs State of U.P.Partner Specific averments in complaint revealing role played by them and that they looked after day to day affairs of the firm .Mani).. (Maharaja Developers & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .P.Dishonour of cheque .Partnership firm .Provision of S. 1881.No appeal filed Revision is not maintainable before Sessions Judge.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 294 (A. applies. 138-.). (Vijay D. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 147 (A.Accused liable to be punished u/s 138 of the Act. the prosecution cannot be quashed exonerating the accused from the liability u/s 138 of the Act.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.No ground to quash complaint. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.In no way absolve statutory liability cast upon accused .Sentence of simple imprisonment and fine .Dishonour of cheque .Conviction . the allegation that accused refused to receive notice even after due information given by postal authorities are matters for trial. (Balasubbaraj Vs R.Dishonour of cheque .Received back unserved with endorsement 'addressee long absent and return to sender' .) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act..Contention that cheque itself speaks that payee will not have recourse to file the complaint.Demand not in accordance with requirement of the provision of S.Plea that petitioner was not a partner in firm or that he was not involved in day to day affairs of firm .Dishonour of cheque .J. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 164 (S. 142.Complaint . (Maganti Ganta Avadhani Vs Kopuri Sreenivasa Rao). 138-. 138-.).J. 1881. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 034 (A.) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.).During pendency of complaint Court allowed the son of complainant.Such fact to be established at trial . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 062 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 120 (ALLAHABAD) #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .L. when once cheque is dishonoured.200 Cr. & Anr. 1881.However.Dishonour of cheque .2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.L.).) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Demand of loan amount and not demand for payment of cheque amount and further demand of damages on account of mental torture .Dishonour of cheque .Stop payment . 145-.) #13: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.K. 1881.P. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI. the endorsement on the cheque made by accused without knowledge of the complainant and in absence of mentioning the said fact in reply notice given by accused. 138...Complaint Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant.C. 1881. Material alteration . (T..Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr..Notice .Dishonour of cheque . accused is not liable when he had no notice of closure of account.Jain & Anr.Letter authorising employee to file complaint not filed Though this is a curable defect but same not removed even during trial .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque ..Sanjeevan).Carbon copy of notice not filed . 1881. 142-. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . (R. 1881.Muthu Vs Kirupakaran). 2007(4) CIVIL COURT . 1881. Vs Bank of India).I.).Dishonour of cheque .It is a curable defect Complainant directed to file affidavit setting out reasons for delay in filing complaint and trial Court directed to provide opportunity to accused to raise their defence .R. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL. 1881. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd.Account was closed not by accused but by Bank in accordance with rules governing current account . (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd. 138-..Complaint cannot be held to be defective on ground of lack of proof of notice. complainant cannot get any benefit of statement of accused u/s 313 Cr. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 478 (M.Signature on cheque denied .Change of date without authorisation . 1881.Complaint is liable to be dismissed.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL.Company .) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #16: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.K.Notice . 1881.Proof of ..Closure of account Account was closed even on date of issue of cheque . merely stated that he gave the cheques but it no where speaks about the change in dates . (Dinesh Sahu Vs Dr.Complaint .Counting of 15 days starts from date of notice or the date on which notice was refused. 1881.Documentary evidence not filed to show that he is Director of Company and has been authorised by the Company to file and depose on behalf of the company .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 138-.). Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr. Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev.Dismissal of complaint . 138-. (Nagaraja Upadhya Vs M.Complaint by Director of Company on behalf of company .An employee filed complaint on behalf of company .Sanjeevan).#14: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.. 138-.P.).Not permissible. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 387 (KARNATAKA) #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .No steps taken to prove that the said signature is that of the accused . then same to be decided on merits. (Director.Company ..Delay Application for condonation of delay not filed alongwith complaint .Cheque issued to discharge promissory note .Photostat copy of notice not admissible in evidence .). (S.Held.) #15: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. (Fragrant Leasing & Finance Company Ltd.C. 138-.). 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 382 (MADRAS) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Refusal to accept notice is deemed a proper service . (Nagaraja Upadhya Vs M. 1881. Corp.Company Summoning order on basis of Affidavit .Held.P.Held.Matter remitted for reconsideration. justified.Kanthimathi & Ors.C.Plea taken for the first time at appellate stage . Dharwad Vs Basanna Pattekar). 138-.P.Held.. complaint not maintainable for want of authority letter. 138-. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 840 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 281 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 2280 (ALL. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (KARNATAKA) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.C.Refusal by addressee .Material alterations in promissory note and request for sending pronote for expert examination .Accused admitted having received notice and that he replied notice .Summoning order quashed . Maruti Feeds & Farms Private Limited. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 330 (MADRAS) #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Jagdish Katuria & Anr. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..If Court is satisfied that there are adequate and cogent reasons to condone delay.) : 2007 CRILJ 3880 : 2007(5) ALJ 184 : 2007(57) ALLINDCAS 571 #17: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant . 1881. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . 139-.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 201 (M. whose statement was taken on oath.). 138-. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (A.Jain & Anr.P.Sree Rama Murthy & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .K. 141-. Ltd.Mere presentation of pre mature complaint need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed .as compensation and in default to undergo S..).Dishonour of cheque .Company .Refusal to receive .Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause . 1881.. (K.).Complaint by power of attorney holder . 000/.K.Persons sought to be made criminally liable .Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .It is open to the company to seek permission of the Court for sending any other person to represent the company in the Court. 1881..) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (L. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (K.).Dishonour of cheque . (G.No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged . (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.I. Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt. 1881.P. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. 1881. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A.Notice ..V.Rathikumar Vs N. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A.Cheque continues to be one issued for the discharge of liability as contemplated u/s 138 of the Act.Dishonour of cheque .Cheque issued against loan . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (A. 138-..).Complaint when found to be well within time then non mentioning of date of service or refusal of notice in complaint is not harmful to the complainant. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Complaint not to be dismissed . (M/s Voltas Ltd.).. Ltd.).142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases. 138-.Sentence . 142-..Pre-mature complaint However.No ground to quash proceedings.Bank endorsement 'Account expires' .Aachawal Vs Gulab Singh Raghuvanshi).No proof of lending money . Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt. (Prashant M.Santhamma & Anr.CASES 387 (KARNATAKA) #24: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.K.Loan denied . cognizance taken after maturity of complaint .Amendment in provision of S.Accused sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of Court . 138-. 138.Discharging of liability .P. 138-.27.P.. (M/s Voltas Ltd. at the first instance is not required to represent the company till the end of the proceedings .Provision of S..Even month or year of loan not disclosed . 1881.Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for conduct of 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.). when complainant does not place on record any material of lending money then it is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant .Rathikumar Vs N. 138.. 138-. 138.Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back .There can be occasions when different person can represent the company . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 478 (M.Cheque amount Rs.Prabhavathi Vs K.P.Santhamma & Anr. 1881.Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan .Particular person. 139-.R.Shiva Shankar & Anr. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).20.If . 000/.Held..Accused to pay Rs.) #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 251 (M.Veeresham Vs S.) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Amounts to dishonour of cheque .) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Complaint beyond period of limitation .Company .K.) #25: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable. 1881.Complaint can be kept pending for taking cognizance when cause of action arises to the complainant or it may be returned to complainant for filing it later. 1881.Pre mature complaint . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. (Dinesh Sahu Vs Dr.138 of the Act is attracted.Accused not guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act.Dishonour of cheque .P. 1881. 1881. 138.. for a period of one month . C.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.. 1881. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.M.. 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 655 (S.Dishonour of cheque . (Indian Penal Code. (K.). accused has discharged his burden to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act .Complainant is at liberty to file a suit for recovery of the amount as well as a complaint for bouncing of the cheques.). still the Company can. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 138-.realised the entire amount be released to the complainant.Earlier accused did not pay instalments in respect of the prized amount of chitties . 406).Loan advanced inspite of the fact that three civil suits for recovery of money against accused were pending Complainant not approaching Court with clean hands and his conduct not that of a prudent man .) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (S.16 lakhs .Advancing loan of a huge amount of Rs.Mymoona Vs H. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 549 (MADRAS) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Even if initially there was no authority.Santhamma & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 688 (KARNATAKA) #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C.P. 1860.Dismissed in default for single instance of non appearance of complainant .Complaint .FIR quashed.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.Dishonour of cheque .) : AIR 2008 SC 278 : 2008 CRILJ 434 : 2007 AIRSCW 6736 : 2008 CLC 214 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 129 : 2007(12) SCC 714 : 2007(12) SCALE 333 : 2007(7) SUPREME 484 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sent by registered post at correct address . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Rathikumar Vs N. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S. 1881. (V.C. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.Mere fact that proceedings have been quashed against the accused will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against him has been made out in the additional evidence led before it.Company . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Trading Company.P.Kannan Vs State by District Crime Branch..At a subsequent stage. 1881. at any stage.. 138. (C. the company can send a person who is competent to represent the company. 406 IPC .Held.)..No instrument executed though a huge loan was advanced .Complaint ordered to be restored to be decided on merits. 141-. 1881. (Harinderpal Singh Vs State of Punjab).) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Director Evidence is not required to be pleaded but there has to be a basic averment as to how one is involved in the alleged crime.. upheld.. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (P&H) #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Kiran Paper Convertors & Merchants & Ors. father . Vs M/s. 138-. 1881.Even no interest thereon charged .) 185 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Initiation of separate proceedings u/s 420 IPC for the offence of cheating is maintainable as it does not amount to double jeopardy. 1881. 138-.Post dated cheque Initiation of proceedings u/s 138 of the Act .C. (Smt.Company .) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 974 (S.. 141-. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (A. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .).Dishonour of cheque .Company . rectify that defect . Vs M/s Vidharbha Vehicles Pvt.Complaint by power of attorney holder . 138-. 138-.3. Mangalore & Anr.Complaint filed Regarding same very cheques FIR lodged u/ss 420.Dishonour of cheque .). (M/s Voltas Ltd.Order of acquittal.). 1881.Dishonour of cheque .K.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 637 (P&H) #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.C.Notice .Notice if received back with postal endorsement that premises is found locked or the addressee is not available then notice is deemed to be served on the addressee unless addressee proves that he had no knowledge that notice was brought to his address.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL. 138-. (Print Links (India) & Anr. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.John Vs Tom Varghese & Anr..420. 138-. Ss.. Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .C.Loan . (John K.). Namakkal).Complainant himself used to borrow money from his brothers.). Surenderan).18 of Limitation Act if such revalidation is made within the period of limitation . 138-.Held. provision of S. returned envelope annexed to complaint and thus it formed part of the complaint .Director or person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of company cannot be prosecuted when notice is not issued to him . (Exports India & Anr. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S. (B.Dishonour of cheque .C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 371 (S. 1881. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. requirement of S. 138. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 198 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 252 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 269 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 599 : 2007(137) DLT 193 #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Held.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.However.C.There was no debt or liability at the time when cheque was given . (C.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C. 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) .. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.When a drawer revalidates cheque from time to time.C.Held.K. 138-.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.Once notice is dispatched his part is over and the next depends on what the sendee does.Raman & Ors.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S..Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.Drawer can still make the payment of cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons and can absolve himself of prosecution u/s 138 of the Act .Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.).Notice received back with postal endorsement that addressee was abroad .).Notice .Dishonour of cheque .C.C.Prakashan Vs P.C. liability is legally enforceable liability.Held. (C.Summoning order quashed.).Notice . 1881.Company Complaint by one of its Directors .Dishonour of cheque .C. & Anr. Vs State & Anr. 1881. 138-.C.and others .) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint not maintainable .) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.Sent by registered post at correct address .) : JT 2007(7) SC 498 : 2007(58) ACC 840 (SC) : 2007(55) AIC 57 : 2007(6) SCC 555 : 2007(3) RAJ 177 : 2007(3) RCR(CRL.C.. 138-.C.Notice ..Accused acquitted.Extension of date of cheque .).Returned enveloped showed that it was sent by registered post acknowledgement due to the correct address with endorsement that `the addressee was abroad' .).) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.Claim as to non receipt of .C. (Vijay Ganesh Gondhlekar Vs Indranil Jairaj Damale).Absence of pleading that notice was sent at the correct address of the drawer by registered post acknowledgement due . including Director.. 1881.25 of Contract Act as well as an acknowledgment within the meaning of S. 1881.138 is sufficiently complied with. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S.Complainant failed to show that he had any financial capacity to advance such a huge amount .C.). 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (BOMBAY) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 001 (S. 142(a)-.Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors .Giving is a process of which receipt is the accomplishment .Dishonour of cheque .C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 037 (S.C.C. on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed.) 185 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Ltd.Company .C.Notice Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company Notice to company .) 185 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). (K. (C..C.Notice . 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S. 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 429 (S. 1881. which is permissible. (C.C. who is sought to be prosecuted is mandatory.Statutory notice to every person.Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr.) 185 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-.`Giving notice' is not the same as `receipt of notice' . 138-. 138. 138-.If drawer does not make payment of cheque amount within 15 days of the receipt of summons then plea of proper service of notice is not available to him.) 185 #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.It is for the payee to perform the former process by sending the notice to the drawer at the correct address . 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 526 (S. 1881.138 of the Act is sufficiently complied with..Alavi Haji Vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr. then on each occasion there is a fresh promise as envisaged by S. 1881.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (S. 138.Complaint by power of attorney holder . (Zaheeda Kazi Vs Mrs.15 lacs to the complainant .Dishonour of cheque .. 1881. 138-.Petitioner not incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company . manager.Appellate Court while admitting appeal directed them to deposit a sum of Rs. .Burden of proof is on the accused.Dishonour of cheque ..C.Fine and compensation Distinction between sub-sections (1) and (3) of S.Company .Notice Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company Statutory notice to every person. is mandatory. 141-.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (S.) 636 : 2007(2) RAJ 424 : 2007(6) SCC 528 #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Not liable for the offence committed by company .141 of the Act .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Company sentenced to pay fine of Rs.Cheque amount Rs.).Amount of compensation must be a reasonable amount .Order of issuance of process against Director quashed and set aside.. impugned order is not sustainable . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 075 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (DELHI) #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRL.C.There is no reason as to why the amount of compensation should be held to be automatically payable.Dishonour of cheque .CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). who is sought to be prosecuted.Dishonour of cheque .Director Tendered his resignation prior to issuance of cheque . 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1029 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY) #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Appeal against .2 lakhs.).C. 138-. 141-.Magistrate cannot award compensation in addition to fine . 138-. 000/. including Director. (Birthe Foster Vs State & Anr.Company ..Kumar Industries).Compensation cannot be recovered forthwith unless period of appeal expires .Petitioner may have handled transactions for and on behalf of the company in India .). 1881. 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1029 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138-.A2 directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25..This does not bring petitioner within the purview of S.). 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (BOMBAY) #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . & Anr.A2 also directed to pay compensation of Rs.Exemption from personal appearance . 138-.Conviction of company and A2 . 1881. 1881.357 Cr.Cheque issued towards time barred debt . 138-.Held.Company .Company .Summoning order Detailed reasons need not to be given. Vs M/s.Exemption granted from personal appearance on deposit of an amount of Rs.Kumar Industries)..A2 was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one month ..Accused cannot be convicted u/s 138 of the Act.If transactions are witnessed by power of attorney or he has full knowledge of the transactions.).Raman & Ors. 1881. (Shanaz D'Souza Vs Sheikh Ameer Saheeb & Anr. although the same is only to be recovered as if a fine has been imposed.C.Sharina Ashraff Khan).. 138-.Since fine alone has been imposed on company which can be suspended during appeal. 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT .) : 2007(2) RCR(CRL.5 lacs each ..Ltd. 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 805 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 089 (BOMBAY) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 387 (S. his statement can be recorded by Magistrate for verification of the complaint.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (S. 138-. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. (Dilip S.Dishonour of cheque . (B. secretary or other officer of the company .Mamta Agency & Ors. 138.).2 lakhs . (Shanaz D'Souza Vs Sheikh Ameer Saheeb & Anr. 1881.1 lac .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co. (Amit Mohan Inder Mohan Sharma Vs M/s. 1881. (Dilip S.Agent Petitioner neither a director. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. & Anr.Cheque not issued for a debt or liability . 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 387 (S.Ltd. 1881.) 636 : 2007(2) RAJ 424 : 2007(6) SCC 528 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. 1881.P. 1881.. Vs M/s.Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co.Summoning order qua petitioner quashed.C. There must be allegation in complaint and evidence that blank cheque was issued with implied authority to holder to fill up the same.). (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.C.Cheque issued for cost of goods to be supplied by drawee .Presumption ..Company . 139-. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Blank cheque . 1881.Company ... 139-. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Ltd. 1881. (ii) Cheque when presented for payment.CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Mohanan & Anr.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited). 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Delay Cannot be condoned without notice to accused. 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER. (iii) cheque when issued was not towards any existing debt or liability . 138.J..Blank cheque . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER. 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL. 141-. who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. 138. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . .. 138. Vs M/s. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. (Kamalammal Vs C. 138.K.).Dishonour of cheque . 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 . 142-. 141-.Cheque presented to bank for realisation and same dishonoured .K. (N.J.C. (Vishnudas Vs Vijaya . (N. 138-.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI.C. 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL. shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company.It is for drawer to rebut presumption .Even if the signature in the cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed by the accused.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S. it is for the directors to establish it at the trial.In absence of rebuttal evidence.J.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Dishonour of cheque . (Jayamma Vs Lingamma).. 139-. 1881.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited).If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 .C.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.It cannot be presumed that an implied authority is given to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt etc.Blank cheque .A person is entitled to presume that directors of the company are incharge of the affairs of the company .Complaint . 1881. was time barred as it was presented for payment after expiry of six months reckoned from date on which it was issued in blank.Pleading There should be an assertion in the complaint that the named accused are directors of the company and that they are incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.Summoning order . 138. 1881.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S..Company .Liability . (N.No criminal liability for the reasons that (i) cheque when issued was blank.Directors .Bank account closed after issuance of cheque .C. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.Directors .Mohanan & Anr.Kumar Industries). 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S. 138-.Has to be on the basis of allegations in complaint and preliminary evidence .Order of trial Court acquitting accused calls for no interference.. every person. 141-. it is to be presumed that cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability. 138.When the offender is a company. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.Defence set up in reply to notice not to be looked into at that stage.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited). Vs M/s. 1881. 1881. 1881.C.Eastern Roadways Pvt. (Kamalammal Vs C.C. (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 138. Notice received back `unclaimed' .Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability .Company ..Kumar Industries).C. (K. 1881.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT ..2500/. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 142 (P&H) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S. 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.C. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. notice is presumed to have been served. 1881..C.Consideration Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes . 1881. 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.Sent through registered post at correct address . 139-..Two cheque of the value of Rs..).Notice . (Kulbir Singh Uberoi & Anr. 1881.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI.).Sentence imposed set aside and case remanded with a direction to pass appropriate sentence in accordance with law.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.Director who negotiated for obtaining financial assistance on behalf of the Company cannot be held vicariously liable . 1881. 138-.Company .Notice .Director Vicarious liability . 138-. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 337 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 071 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1955 (KERALA) : 2007(3) KERLT 31 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 28 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI.Held.P.C.Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted with.Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 951 (KAR.. (K. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.It must be pleaded that accused was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the Company.Quashing of proceedings In proceedings u/s 482 of Cr.Dishonour of cheque . (Ravi Vs Kuttappan).C. 138-.55.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 850 (S.Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved .Complainant should at least be compensated with the amount due by the accused on the cheque issued by him . 138-. 138-.Allayyanvar Vs Shri Santosh Kapadi)..in each case without any direction to pay amount due on cheques bounced . 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 500/.Despatch of notice within 30 days is the requirement of law .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Sentence . 1881.Mahantesh).). & Ors.).Dishonour of cheque .Srikanth Singh Vs M/s North East Securities Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .It does not give rise to an inference that he was responsible for day-to-day affairs of the company .C.Date of receipt of notice is not crucial or relevant. 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 024 (S.Company ..It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma).Director Vicarious liability . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (S. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . Vs M/s.) : 2007(2) AIRKARR 326 : 2007(55) ALLINDCAS 719 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 1708 : 2007(3) KANTLJ 122 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 213 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 437 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2007 NOC 1358 (BOMBAY) : 2007 CRILJ 2220 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 314 : 2007 ALLMR(CR() 1063 : 2007(1) BOMCR (CRI) 1028 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 138-. High Court is not to go into the truthfulness of the allegations Once a complaint discloses the commission of an offence.Bhave & Anr.C.C. & Ors. the veracity of the allegations is not to be tested in proceedings u/s 482 of the Code as the same had to be tested in the backdrop of the evidence which is yet to come on record.Director Vicarious liability .. (K.It cannot be a subject matter of mere inference. & Ors.That should be the rule unless there are good reasons to depart from the same .. 138. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma).Complaint . (Shri Basavraj D.Forms part of the record and it need not be marked and non marking is not fatal to the complainant's case.Must be pleaded and proved .Fine imposed Rs. P.Cheque payable to bearer . 1881..Unless amount is claimable in civil suit. not received back . (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr.Fine/or compensation Power of court to impose fine may or may not be limited but power to award compensation is not ..Dishonour of cheque .High Court of one State cannot quash criminal proceedings pending in a Court within jurisdiction of another High Court.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala & Ors.C. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr.Shankar). 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 469 (RAJASTHAN) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Jurisdiction .357(3) Cr.Compensation . 1881.The presumption is rebuttable .) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.). 1881...CASES 850 (S.Dishonour of cheque . direction u/s 357(1) or S.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 1881. for payment of interest. 1881. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.Partnership firm . (Tripti Vyas Vs M/s Ahlers India Pvt. Vs Prafull Chandra).Dishonour of cheque .Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced .Compensation .Undelivered letter or A.Consideration for payment of compensation is somewhat different from payment of fine.Period to file complaint is thus extended to a further period of a week. 138. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.P.Presumption u/s 139 is not available .) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.The burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused.C. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 731 (DELHI) #7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr. 1881. 138.)..Respondent is deemed to be holder in due course of cheque .).) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Allowance of period of service of notice which at least should be a week is admissible in this regard . certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated.Holder in due course .C. (Sardar Jasvir Singh & Anr.Ltd. Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability .Dishonour of cheque . 138-.C.Money lender . 138-.).Has locus to file complaint on dishonour of cheque. (R..Not possible to lend money without any document .) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Notice .. 138-. 1881.) : 2007 CRILJ 2538 : 2007(3) ALJ 553 : 2007(5) ALLMR 24 JS : 2007(3) RECCIVR 595 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007 ALL SCR 2010 : JT 2007(9) SCC 449 : 2007(3) RCR CRI. 1881.).). for payment of compensation cannot be issued.Suresh Kumar Vs R.Son of deceased partner Cannot be impleaded as an accused merely for the reason that he happens to be the son of deceased partner. 139-. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 865 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1617 (ALL.In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act. 138-.When dishonour of cheque takes place.Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present proceedings instituted by him to realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable - .Date of lending money not mentioned in complaint and notice .Interest Direction can be issued u/s 357(3) Cr. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr. 1881. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER.Cheque issued towards repayment of loan . 934 : 2007(4) RAJ 226 : 2007(9) SCALE 371 : 2007(3) KHC 595 #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (ICICI Bank Ltd. 138-. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 138-. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Compensation .Presumption .. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S.. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . (P.D. 30-. 1881.J. Vs Vidyadharan M.Accused convicted and sentenced till rising of Court .C...Petitioner was not Director at the material time . 138. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .138 of the Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER.. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 065 (DELHI) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 139.) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Accused borrowed money and issued two cheques .Interest Court can ascertain the loss which the complainant would suffer/has suffered on account of the delay in payment and appropriate rate of interest can be directed to be paid. 138-.(Mrs. & Anr. no offence u/s 420 IPC is made out.) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.)..Dishonour of cheque . as there was contingent alternative available to complainant to get worth of his money in terms of real estate which was not availed.Held.). 138-.Cheque drawn for discharge of time-barred liability .. (P.Subsequent to the bouncing of cheques complainant did not avail of second option .Dishonour of cheque of Rs. 1881. 1881. 1881. 1881.Director Cheque issued in 2003 whereas petitioner ceased to be Director of Company in 1994 .3 lacs .P.) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.In the instant case interest at the rate of 8% .P.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy).Presumption Rebuttal .C. 138-. (Geeta Vs State of U.3. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Prashant Goel Vs State & Anr. 1881.). 118(a)-. 138. .No offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out.J. & Anr.Accused liable to pay compensation of Rs.Burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution.Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones .Certified copy of Form-32 issued by Registrar of Companies is a conclusive proof that petitioner resigned in 1994 . 138-.Compensation .) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Cheque not presented in Bank for encashment within six months from the date on which it was drawn .Time barred complaint Condonation of delay .50 lacs and in default to undergo two months S. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 028 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (M.Shankar).Two options were available to complainant to either get the cheques encashed or in the alternative to get plot of 100 square yards ..First notice of application be issued to the other side without taking cognizance of complaint .Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.).. Vs Vidyadharan M.Dishonour of cheque .Proceedings against petitioner.Accused acquitted. & Anr. (Kamala S.C. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.Company . 138-. (Geeta Vs State of U..).Suresh Kumar Vs R.Compensation amount if realised payable to complainant. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 459 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2033 (KER. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (ALLAHABAD) : AIR 2007 NOC 1485 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007 CRILJ 2222 : 2007(3) ALJ 65 #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. (Ramakrishnan Vs Gangadharan Nair & Anr.Application be decided after hearing the parties.).Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (S. consistent with the rate of interest payable by the nationalised banks .Dishonour of cheque will fall within the sweep of S.Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.Dishonour of cheque .I. 1881.Fine and/or compensation . (Kamala S.) : 2007 CRILJ 1486 : 2007(5) AKAR 814 : 2007(5) ALLMR 22 JS : 2006(3) KERLJ 161 #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 138-. 139-.).Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S. quashed .) Sarla Kumar Vs Srei International Finance Ltd.Imposition of fine and/or compensation must be considered having regard to the relevant factors in mind as envisaged u/s 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1881. & Anr.. 138-. (Dr. 138-.No counter credential projected by complainant Petitioner cannot be fastened with criminal liability under Section 138 of the N. (iv) a notice in terms of the said provision was served on the person sought to be made liable.Company .Pharmaceutical Ltd.Udhani & Ors.43 of the Act comes into play. (Hazi Abadullah & Ors.. 138-.However. 1881.per annum allowed.).Cheque is one issued in discharge of the debt or liability coming u/s 138 of the Act . (Lachhman P. 1881.Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively.Lending of money Cheque issued before amount given by complainant .Quashing of complaint Accused took plea that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security .Company .. 1881.Pharmaceutical Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .S.S. 141-. it was dishonoured. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S. and (v) despite service of notice. 1881.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S. 138.Company .) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Director Only such person is liable if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (S. 138.Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for an offence committed by the Company that he was in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business . 138.P.M. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr..C..Dishonour of cheque . 43-. 1881. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.Director The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-. were complied with within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice.C..).It is necessary to specifically aver in complaint that at the time offence was committed. neither any payment was made nor other obligations.Dishonour of cheque .Without such an averment in complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied .S. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr. (S.I.Company .C. 138. 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S. Vs M/s.Dishonour of cheque . (George Vs Kamarudeen)..It is not a ground for quashing complaint .C.Redington (India) Ltd. (N.Dishonour of cheque .C. (S. 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S. Act. Vs State of U. 141-.Notice sent under UPC received by addressee .Complaint qua petitioner quashed. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.). 138.).Pharmaceutical Ltd.Notice .No such averment in complaint .K.Dishonour of cheque .C.). (ii) the same was presented. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KERALA) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.).Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.Ingredients of offence u/s 138 of the Act are : (i) a cheque was issued.Sent as per registered post and also as per UPC . 141-.Same not controverted by filing counter affidavit ..M.C. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.) #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Company . (iii) but.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S. 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 393 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 59 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 755 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.). 138-.Dishonour of cheque .). if any. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 135 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT .Notice sent as per registered post returned by postman by endorsing false report . Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. & Anr. 138-. 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Such matter has to be looked into at stage of trial.It is liable to be deemed that there was no sufficient service of notice .Dishonor of cheque .Service of notice denied by filing affidavit .C. in case cheque is issued in anticipation of lending money but money is not given to the borrower then consideration fails and S.Director Vicarious liability .).) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S. & Anr.Proceedings quashed.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER..) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.Director resigned prior to issuance of cheque .C. 1881. 1881.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.M. the person accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company . Vs State of U.P.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138-.Acquittal not valid. Vs Chandrakant Manilal Kothari & Anr. 141-.In absence of any averment or specific evidence the complaint is not entertainable. complainant not competent to institute the complaint .Complaint dismissed.). 138.Company . (Rajendra Prasad Vs M.There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company .Dishonour of cheque . (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr.). (N.Husband neither a general nor special power of attorney holder .Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.P..Failure to produce power of attorney authorising to lodge complaint and to give sworn statement on behalf of his principal .).) #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Company ..Court undertook exercise of naked comparison of signatures of accused on cheque with other admitted signatures and came to conclusion that signature on cheque does not appear to be signature of accused .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .I.Section 138 of NI Act has overriding effect over section 446 of Companies Act . (N.Signature on cheque disputed . 1881.Order staying proceedings under section 138 because of Section 446 of Companies Act.Court should be assisted by experts opinion .Issued as security .Cheque presented again ..No cause of action . 1881.Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint quashed. 138-. Act.Banker is more competent to say whether it is signature of accused or not with reference to specimen signatures .Complaint filed by husband on behalf of wife on the basis of authority letter . Bangalore & Ors.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.Held.K. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dismissal of complaint for want of proof of power of attorney justified. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 096 (KARNATAKA) #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Manibhadra Marketing Pvt. (O. 138.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.Petitioner not a signatory of the cheque Proceedings against petitioner quashed.Dishonour of cheque .Director Allegations in complaint that respondent accused Nos.Expert opinion .Bank had no occasion either to honour or dishonour the cheque . 1881.).Company . 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.. 1881.Issuance of cheque proved Presumption arises u/s 139 of Act in favour of complainant .Notice .Not received by accused . 1881.).Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr. 138-. 138-. Section 47 .) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.).Evidence Act.Part time Director . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881..K.Bank not accepting the cheque .. 1881. 1881.Shivaraj). 1872.P. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S..Even if cheque is issued as a security for payment.Ramanath). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 176 (RAJASTHAN) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. it is negotiable instrument and encashable security at the hands of payee .Proviso (a) . (Gyan Chand Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KARNATAKA) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Umaswamy Vs K.Dishonour of cheque . 141-.Description should be clear .`Within a period of six months' - .No reason to interfere.N.No averment in complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day business of the company or was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. quashed. 1881.Not a ground to exonerate the penal liability u/s 138 of N.C.).. (O. 138.C. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 142 (BOMBAY) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Director There should be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by a Director in the transaction .. Vs Shanthi Group.High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show that respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed proceedings against respondents .In the authority letter it was no where undertaken that the executant would be bound by the acts done and conducted on her behalf in respect of the cheque .Provision of Section 446 of Companies Act has no application to the provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act ..2 to 12 were Directors/persons responsible for carrying out business of company and the liability of accused persons was joint and several .Dishonour of Cheque . Ltd & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 141-.Complaint by power of attorney holder .Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 138-.).Default sentence .Conviction . (H.Complaint against Directors of Company in respect of cheques presented and dishonoured after winding up orders are passed is not maintainable. 138. (Dilawar Singh Vs Pankaj Joshi & Anr. proper.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 704 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 143 (KER.Ashok). 138-. (Ratan Lal Garera & Ors.Signatures denied Handwriting expert .Complaint ordered to be returned for its presentation before the proper Court..No legally enforceable debt .can be imposed in view of amended provision of S.) : 2007 CRILJ 2312 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 58 : 2007(4) AIRBOMR 664 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 936 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 479 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.Legally enforceable debt Rebuttal of presumption .R.Proceedings quashed. 1881.Conviction .Dishonour of cheque .Accused to undergo two months SI on failure to pay compensation amount within two months .). 1881.Dharman & Anr.. (V.). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 355 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 604 (P&H) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Shrikant Chavan Vs Hotel the Vaishno Devi).Dismissal in default .Ltd.Complaint . 138-.Date of cheque is not to be excluded in calculating the period of six months.Fine exceeding Rs.(As amended) . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 231 (KARNATAKA) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .In case of denial of signature of drawer of a cheque.Rama Shetty Vs N.Court at the place of office of Advocate who issued statutory notice has no territorial jurisdiction . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (J&K) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 86 : 2007(1) KERLJ 161 : 2007(1) .Appeal Admitted and notice ordered to be issued to the complainant . 1881.Order dismissing complaint in default set aside as complaint was dismissed without considering the said question. (V.For invoking criminal liability under S. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 368 (J&K) #3: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..). 1881. Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr..When cheque is dishonoured for insufficiency of funds then there is no need for handwriting expert to give his opinion on signature on cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 252 (KERALA) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.M.Girish Kumar Vs M/s Muthoot Capital Service Pvt.Jurisdiction . cheque is required to be presented to the drawee bank or the payee bank within the period of six months from the date of its issue. 1881. (Harihara Puthra Sharma Vs State of Kerala & Anr. 1881.Company .Impugned order allowing application not sustainable in law. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.Acquittal. 138-. & Anr.Winding up orders of company passed and official liquidator appointed .G. (Rajendra B. 138-..Dishonour of cheque .Ink of signature different from the ink of other writings of cheque Entire cheque amount found not due in view of admission of receipt of certain amount .143 of the Act. 1881. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Nanu Vs Vijayan). 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.G. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Appellate Court has to peruse the record and pass an order on merits.Jayasankar Vs K..Dishonour of cheque . the best witness would be the concerned Bank Manager and not a handwriting expert .Liability u/s 138 of Act not incurred . held.Process issued . (Shrikant Chavan Vs Hotel the Vaishno Devi).5.e.). 000/. (K. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 549 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1383 (KAR. 143-.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 193 (KERALA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 of the Act.Cheque not presented within its validity period i.Non appearance of accused Appeal cannot be dismissed for default .Dishonour of cheque .Satish Vs B.Complaint can be dismissed in default when personal attendance of complaint was essential on the crucial date . 1881.Sasidaran Nayar).. six months . 138-. 138-.Quashing of proceedings .).) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #2: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Such default sentence shall lapse at any time when the payment is made either before or after the default sentence starts running..N. (J.Dishonour of cheque . 147-. 1881.President on behalf of Society can file complaint.Sending cheque to handwriting expert . 138. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 .Held. summoning order quashed.Ranga). 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 439 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 351 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 214 (P&H) : 2007(1) RECCIVR 217 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. is not required when accused is represented through his counsel and it is not a case where he is absconding and evading the court process. in absence of date of service of notice of demand.Accused transacting business on behalf of company on commission basis .. prepaying and sent by registered post . (Ramesh Chander Vs State of Haryana & Anr. 1881.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan).Dishonour of cheque . 1881.KERLT 16 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 103 #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. .Compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act can be done during trial of case as well as by the High Court or Court or Session while acting in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Cr.P.). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 499 (KARNATAKA) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Accused purchasing potatoes from complainant on behalf of company .C.Application dismissed and non bailable warrants issued and also issued process u/ss 82/83 Cr... (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr.Order set aside .Presumption of service of notice is available only when notice is sent by post. once cheque is duly singed by accused. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (DELHI) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. 1881. Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 1881.Accused issued cheque in discharge of debt of company Held. mere denial of issuing cheque is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act.Misutilisation of blank signed cheque . (J.).Cheque issued in respect of uncertain future liabilities . (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.Complaint Limitation . (Deepak Kumar & Anr. if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Dishonour of cheque .C.Conviction upheld.Compounding of offence .Summoning order Accused appeared through counsel and moved an application for exemption from his personal appearance .)... 1881. 139-. Vs Umesh Sharma). 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 138. Vs Shanthi Group.Dishonour of cheque .Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan).Denial of issuance of cheque .Presumption of service of notice is not available . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR. accused is validly prosecution . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 467 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 631 (ALLAHABAD) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.P.Magistrate directed to forward the cheque to expert for comparison if accused wants the admitted handwritings/specimen writings to be compared with the disputed writings in the cheque. 142(b)-.C.Filing of complaint after period of limitation .Revision against . (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair)....Conviction . properly addressed. 138-. (M/s Sathavahana Ispat Ltd.Dishonour of such cheque does not attract prosecution u/s 138 of the Act. Bangalore & Ors. (Sanjay Chaturvedi Vs State).It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR.Dishonour of cheque . 138.Co-operative Society . 138-.P.Notice .) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Sent through private courier service .Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution .S.Issue of non bailable warrants and issue of process u/ss 82/83 Cr. 1881. 142-. 138-. 138-. Complaint. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Manager filed complaint .An employee of a proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the Act.Company .Dishonour of cheque . 138-.CJM erroneously took cognizance .Separate notices issued .. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.Separate notices issued .P. 1881.Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.C. 1881. 141-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 945 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2032 (KER. 138-.C.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Seven complaints filed .by the Power of Attorney Holder).Seven complaints are maintainable .) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S. in case single notice is issued then all the transactions covered by the notice would be regarded as a single transaction. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes).Power of attorney holder Complaint signed by power of attorney holder in his own name and not on behalf of complainant . permitting a single trial.C.Dishonour of cheque . but because of division of work that Court may not try a complaint and. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Power of attorney . (K. 1881. 138-.by the Power of Attorney Holder). held within limitation.Dishonour of cheque . (K.NOC 195 (KER.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. (Bhasin Credit Aid Ltd. the period provided for limitation would stop running from the day it was presented in the said Court .However.Every Magistrate has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint throughout the district. therefore.). Vs Raj Kumar).) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.Trial for each offence held separately and accused convicted ...Complaint .by the Power of Attorney Holder).Power of attorney holder It is not required to record the sworn affidavit of complainant also on a future date to enable the Court to exercise its discretion u/ss 202 & 203 of Cr.Complaint through power of attorney holder .Refusal of Magistrate to direct the subsequent sentence to run concurrently with the previous sentence cannot lead to causing miscarriage of justice.Manager not duly authorized by Board of Directors to sign and file the complaint Not a ground for quashing the complaint.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S. 1881.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint returned to be presented in a Court having territorial jurisdiction .).Territorial jurisdiction . 1881.If not filed at initial stage can be filed even at a later stage when validity of the same is questioned and Court then has to decide the genuineness or the validity of the same.) : 2007 CRILJ 1042 : 2007(3) ALJ 390 : 2007(5) AKAR 813 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 445 : 2007(49) ALLINDCAS 208 : 2007(1) KERLJ 178 : 2006(4) KERLJ 604 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 591 #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. it is not obligatory for the trial Court to direct in all cases that subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with the previous sentence . (V. (K.C. 2007(2) CIVIL . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint is maintainable and not bad in law.. (Rajendra B.Proprietorship concern .Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.Soman Pillai Vs Sabu Jacob & Anr. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 683 (MADRAS) (DB) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held. 138-. 138-.Complaint beyond limitation when filed in Court of Magistrate . (Rajendra B.K.. once the Court of CJM had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. it may order presentation of complaint at a place so earmarked .Held. 138-.Seven cheques issued on different dates . 1881..Dishonour of cheque .Complaint filed in the Court of CJM whereas it had to be filed in the Court of Magistrate in the same district .Seven cheques issued on different dates .Gopalakrishnan Vs Karunakarann rep.)... Dishonour of cheque .COURT CASES 607 (DELHI) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (DELHI) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs State. 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (KERALA) (FB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 798 (KERALA) (FB) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Kerala High Court is not competent to quash the complaint or interfere with the proceedings before a criminal court.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195 (KER.).Dishonour of cheque . (Janeshwar Dutt Vs Sanjiv Kumar).Vicarious liability .Pleading .Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. 138-. (M/s.Choodappa)..Ltd.. 1881. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes).C.Limitation starts to run from receipt of second notice. Vs M/s.Signature in cheque Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution By mere admission of signature right of accused to contend that a blank signed cheque was misutilised by the payee is not taken away.).Ramankutty & Anr. 138-. 1881. outside the jurisdiction of the Court.Court at the place where money was intended to be paid has jurisdiction . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (BOMBAY) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 771 (BOMBAY) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.It is a matter of fact which has to be proved before a Court of law..Company .Production of cheque and memo is necessary for the just decision of a complaint .141 of the Act so as to make some persons other than company vicariously liable therefor.Bank witness produced but through oversight the dishonoured cheque and memo issued by Bank not exhibited . 1881. 138.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Cause of action arises only on receipt of second notice .Dishonour of cheque .Limitation .Court at place where cheque was presented for realisation has no jurisdiction to try the offence.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Not a ground to quash complaint . 1881. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.Quashing of Non supply of goods for which cheque was issued .. (Everest Advertising Pvt. (S.Complaint . 1881.N.Application allowed. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.C.C. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice issued again . 138-.Serve Overseas & Anr.) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .).Dishonour of cheque .C.. (Meenakshi Sathish (Mrs. 1881.There must be an averment that the person who is vicariously liable for commission of the offence of the Company both was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company . 1881.. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.K.Company . Govt.It is a case of oversight and not an attempt to fill in the lacuna . 138-.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.) Vs Southern Petrochemical Industries & Ors.Cheque presented against and dishonoured again . 138-.Parameshwarappa & Anr.).Money lending business Question as to complainant having no money lending licence is not relevant in a complaint filed u/s 138 NI Act which is more in quasi civil and criminal in nature.. (Ahuja Nandkishore Dongre Vs State of Maharashtra). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 693 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 833 (P&H) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 1881.Jurisdiction .Recall of witness . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 638 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1057 (P&H) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Unnikrishnan Vs T.. (T. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cause of action arose within State of Kerala but complaint filed in a Court outside the State of Kerala .Dishonour of cheque .Chairman or Director . Vs S.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint must contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview of S. (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair).) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice issued but received back with endorsement `no such addressee' . 141-..Shirdi Overseas Imports & Exports & Anr. Dishonour of cheque .No ground to quash complaint.Not proper to dismiss complaint . (V.Blank cheque theory Cheque signed by drawer .141 of the Act stand satisfied. 000/. Govt..Unnikrishnan Vs T.Sarala).Legally enforceable debt or liability . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 747 (KARNATAKA) #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the summoning order .Concurrent finding of Trial Court and First Appellate Court that accused were in charge of and were responsible to company for conduct of its business Such finding needs no interference in revision.R.Transaction relating to cheque not as alleged in complaint .S. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.. (Virender Singh Vs Laxmi Narain & Anr. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. Bangalore Vs D.Dishonour of cheque .Drawer admitting balance amount shown as due in running account.Ramankutty & Anr.Cheque of Rs.Complaint should be kept pending till the ripening of cause of action or complaint to be returned with an advice to the complainant for presentation after completion of necessary statutory period.Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S. (T. 1881.Dismissal of complaint on ground of non production of invoices relating to sales of goods held. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Summoning order .Shivadas Vs Ramanath Shetty & Anr..Ltd. 1881. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.Dishonour of cheque . unless the complainant has a case that accused did not honour the agreement and that consequent on that his brother had handed over the cheque and thus he became a holder in due course . (Anil Kumar Jaiswal Vs State & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Cheque drawn and handed over to brother of complainant could not have been made use of by the complainant..Company .No reason to interfere in the order of acquittal. 1881. (Everest Advertising Pvt.No offence is made out u/s 138 of the Act .Ltd. cannot exercise any inherent jurisdiction.Cheque filled up by some other person putting the date and amount . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 759 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1025 (KERALA) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. not proper . (Ganesh Enterprises.Revision . 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 750 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 2039 (DELHI) : 2007 CRILJ 2262 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 765 : 2006(135) DLT 273 : 2007(2) KERLJ 31 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. Vs S.Company . 1881.K.2 and 3 took part .Every error is not justification for invoking revisional powers .Accused liable to conviction. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem)..Consideration .N. as true and correct .).Directors Pleading .Held.Parameshwarappa & Anr. 138-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (S. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque issued in discharge of liability arising out of an agreement void ab initio Provision of S.C.Holder in due course Partnership business dissolved .Yousaf)... 138-. revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked.Drawer of cheque regular customer and purchasing goods on credit .). 138-. there is no doubt that ingredients of S.Premature complaint . 1881.Dishonour of cheque . Vs State.Dishonour of cheque .40.) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.As a result of fall out of non payment negotiations were held between parties wherein Respondent Nos.entrusted to brother of complainant Agreement reduced to writing . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (ALLAHABAD) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 982 (ALLAHABAD) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.). (Madamuttathil Abdul Razak Vs M.Dishonour of cheque .Drawer cannot get absolved of the liability u/s 138 of the Act. 1881.A Magistrate does not have and.Unless the alleged infraction of procedure resulted in miscarriage of justice.Question can be decided only when parties lead evidence .Recall of order . Vs State.) #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138-. 138-.). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 524 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 942 (KAR) : 2007 CLC 1004 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 199 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 501 : 2007(53) ALLINDCAS 576 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 801 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 131 . 138-. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Choodappa). 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Prosecution of Chairman and Director of Company .Quashing of complaint on ground that complainant is not a holder in due course .). Govt.). (S.138 of the Act is not attracted. 1881. thus. Complaint filed through power of attorney holder .Cheque issued in name of firm but complaint filed by a firm different from the one in whose name cheque was issued . 138-..Delay of 3 days in filing complaint.Complaint.Cheque issued towards time barred debt . (Rathikumar Vs Santhamma).. (Rajeev Soni Vs Indresh Singh). 1881. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : . (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand). 138-. (S. reopening of trial cannot be permitted and complainant cannot be recalled for cross examination.Bhojarajan).Production of books of account maintained by complainant .) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Dishonour of Cheque .Company Complaint against company and its Directors . 1881. Vs M/s.This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of the Act .P.Ltd.No ground made out to quash the proceedings.Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan .Bhojarajan). Chandigarh). 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Accused living at Chandigarh . (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. rightly dismissed. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) #17: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .P. Vs S.At the fag end of trial.Jurisdiction .P.) : 2007 CRILJ 2643 : 2007(3) AKAR 423 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 865 : 2006(4) KERLT 308 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Without this averment in complaint. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 782 (M.Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed.Cheque will continue to be one issued for discharge of liability as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act.Case pending before Court at Jaipur .). 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 812 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 103 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 725 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 482 : 2007(2) ALJ 313 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 182 : 2006(48) ALLINDCAS 717 : ILR(KANT. 138. Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Notice issued by firm which was different from the one in whose name cheque was issued . 138-.Entire proceedings vitiated on this ground alone.. and responsible for the conduct of business of the company . 138.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 888 (M.Dishonour of cheque .#16: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt . 139-.Dishonour of cheque .Delay can be condoned only on issuance of notice to accused. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 024 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 210 (KER. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 798 (M.. 1881. 1881. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.Authority letter or power of attorney whereby attorney was authorised to file complaint on behalf of company not filed .Firm .Company . held.Parameshwarappa & Anr. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs S. 138-.Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm .).Choodappa). 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Permissible only when debt or liability is disputed by accused and existence of account books/papers is admitted by complainant. 138-.Punjab and Haryana High Court can grant anticipatory bail for transitory period. (Rajkumar Vs Smt. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand). Ltd.. (Gurmit Kaur Vs U. 1881.Time barred debt is also valid consideration.Dishonour of cheque .Notice issued in itself defective .Not clear as to what type of questions are necessary to be put to the complainant . 141-..Transitory bail .Condonation .. 138..Dishonour of Cheque .Gunmala & Ors. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt.Once the cheque is issued.Punjab and Haryana High Court granted transitory bail for 21 days .Complaint against firm and its five partners . the person accused was in charge of.T. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 067 (P&H) #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 2006 KAR 3771 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 498 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Recall of complainant for cross examination when the case was at the stage of pronouncement of judgment . 1881. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied. 141-.Eastern Roadways Pvt. Vs S. 138-. having two school going children .Receipt of notice denied . 1881. 1881. it gives an authority to the person.. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem). 138-.. (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries).Cheque again presented and again dishonoured . 138-.Offence when committed It is not giving of notice which makes offence .Notice .Single default not sufficient to dismiss the complaint in default when cause shown by complainant for absence is not disbelieved. 1881.Cause of action is complete when drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of receipt of notice .Notice returned with endorsement that addressee did not claim the notice and the persons in occupation did not receive the intimation and not as 'No such addressee' .Dishonour of cheque .Law does not mandate proof of original transaction or existence of original consideration . 1881. to whom it is issued.Dishonour of cheque . 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 836 (P&H) : 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 260 (P&H) : 2006(4) REC CRI R 680 : 2006 CRI LJ 3172 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.When blank cheque is issued by one to another.When no such reasons are forthcoming. (Moideen Vs Johny). (Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.). (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries).Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1578 (KER.Dishonour of cheque .2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. (Aniyan Thomas Chacko Vs The Varvelil Bankers & Anr. Criminal Court is not to adjudicate on the liability to discharge with the cheque is alleged to be issued. 1881.On dishonour of cheque accused is not absolved of the liability.).. to fill it up at the appropriate stage with the necessary entries regarding the liability and to present it to Bank .Petitioner.Cause of action . (Manjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Anr.It is a defective notice .Dishonour of cheque . 138-. complaint ordered to be restored.Petitioner has to also look after her old mother-in-law besides two school going children .Exemption from personal appearance granted.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) : 2006(4) RECCIVR . 138-.Held.).Blank cheque . 1881. (Johnson Scaria Vs State of Kerala). 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 262 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (KERALA) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque issued as security for transaction between the parties .Non appearance of accused due to illness .Occurrence 5 years old .Prosecution launched on the basis of dishonour of cheque for the second time .). 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1031 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 220 (KERALA) : 2006 CRI LJ 542 (NOC) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..It is the receipt of notice by drawer which gives cause of action .Offence is deemed to have been committed only from the date when notice period expires .Notice sent .Process not issued .Magistrate before dismissing the complaint in default should record reasons as to why he does not deem it proper to adjourn the hearing .Exemption from personnel appearance . 138-.Presumption that addressee resides at that address is proper.Held.Dismissal of complaint in default . 2006(3) KERLJ 561 : 2006(4) KERLT 290 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Name of bank incorrectly mentioned .In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Act. 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 789 (P&H) : 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 151 (P&H) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1881. these are inconsistent pleas and are self contradictory and an afterthought which is apparently carved out to resist the claim of complainant.Defective notice . 1881. 138-.. a household lady. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Anita Nanda Vs State of Punjab & Anr..Normally cause does not arise until the commission of offence..) : 2007(5) AKAR 695 ..On the other hand prayer made for dismissal of complaint on plea that complaint is barred by time in view of notice served by complainant .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) : 2006(4) RECCIVR 905 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. cause of action begins to run not on the issuance of a defective notice but it started to run on issuance of notice on dishonour of cheque for the second time.Dishonour of cheque . 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 836 (P&H) : 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 260 (P&H) : 2006(4) REC CRI R 680 : 2006 CRI LJ 3172 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Yogendra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs Ashok Kumar Goyal & Anr. 20-.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.).Dishonour of cheque . 138-. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.. (Soman Achari Vs Sabu Jacob).T. 1881. 1881. cognizance can be taken on such a complaint after it is matured.Dishonour of cheque .. but may have erroneously in good faith done that thing. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..) : 2007(1) ALJ (EE) 82 : 2007(2) RAJLW 1501 #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries).Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) : 2006(4) RECCIVR 905 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act... he gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his choice.Drawer of cheque incurs liability of prosecution under Section 138 of the Act.Cheque issued as security for repayment of debt . (ii) the letter does not reach the respondent for want of correct address.Burden rests heavily on shoulders of account holder to claim absolution from culpable liability. 1881.Deshmukh & Anr. 1881..Notice received by family member of drawer .Acquittal . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 138-.Deshmukh & Anr.. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .P.Held.No evidence led by drawer to .). any presumption get attracted or rebutted in order to draw appropriate inferences.Appeal against It is necessary for Appellate Court to find out as to what facts are established and whether on the basis of such facts. 138-.However.Dishonour of cheque . only jurisdictional Magistrate has power to try the same . 1881. and (v) As assured and promised by the respondent. his proceedings shall not be set aside merely on the ground that he was not empowered.Demand of payment not made in notice .905 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Signed blank cheque Defence that a signed blank cheque was handed over by an account holder is inherently suspicious .).Cheque can be presented for the second time and complaint filed on fresh cause of action in case : (i) Envelope addressed to the complainant is lost or damaged or destroyed in transit. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. the cheque has been tendered for the second time. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem).Notice . (iv) the letter so posted is not received by the actual addressee and the postage is stolen in transit. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Bangalore Vs Usha Paints & Decorators. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) : 2006(4) RECCIVR 905 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .It is open to a person to sign and deliver a blank or incomplete cheque and is equally open for the holder of cheque to fill up blanks and specify the amount therein. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 614 (KARNATAKA) #15: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice issued but no complaint filed . Bangalore & Anr. 1881. 20-. 138-. 138..Blank cheque .Sent as per registered post . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 387 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 334 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 129 (RAJ.Deshmukh & Anr.If any Magistrate not empowered by law to do any other thing including to take cognizance of an offence. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . Limited..Undated cheque When a drawer deliver a signed cheque.Dishonour of cheque .Pre mature complaint Cannot be rejected on this ground alone .Dishonour of cheque .Complaint .Dishonour of cheque . 138-.It is a negotiable instrument . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 138-.However. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.). 138. 1881. it is not a legal notice strictly in terms of Section 138(b) of the Act.Dishonour of cheque . (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries). 1881.Jurisdiction Every Judicial Magistrate in a district has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint . (S. (iii) the envelope so received by the respondent is short of notice and it is blank. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K. A detailed inquiry giving opportunity to the parties to adduce oral evidence is not necessary at the stage of taking cognizance to decide whether delay deserves to be condoned under Section 142 of the Act.prove that he did not receive notice through member of his family .Director nominated by IDBI as financial assistance extended to company IDBI a financial institution controlled by Central Govt.Dishonour of cheque .Condonation of delay . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 274 (P&H) (DB) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (P&H) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 111 (P&H) : 2006(4) RECCIVR 905 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . 1881.No interference in order of acquittal.Notice given to company . . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 822 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 262 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 592 : 2006(132) DLT 498 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .In default to undergo imprisonment .Accused convicted.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 : 2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727 #1: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Assurance given to present cheque again and that it will be honoured . 138. 139-.. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 698 (PATNA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 999 (PATNA) #2: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. or in other materials which would be sufficient to satisfy the Court that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified period. 138-.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 : 2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. if any..Dishonour of cheque .P.(As amended) . (Girish Vs Muthoot Capital Service (P) Ltd.Notice issued . 1881.Condonation of delay . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 433 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (KARNATAKA) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.When there is failure to prove factum of retirement from partnership the only reasonable conclusion could be that there was no existing liability as on date of issuance of cheque .Proceedings against petitioner quashed.A. (Rajkumar Malhotra Vs Bhanwarlal).Acquittal of accused on ground of want of service of notice is bad in law . 138-.).Compensation . (Nagendra Prasad Singh & Anr.Legally enforceable debt .Specific plea of accused that complainant is still a partner . 142.Indira Devi & Ors.Proceedings against Managing Director cannot be quashed.. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 136 (KER. 138.Jameel Ahmed & Anr. (K.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 518 (A.Dishonour of cheque .).Such default sentence shall lapse at any time when payment is made either before or after default sentence starts running. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 136 (KER.Dishonour of cheque .. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A. 141-.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Cheque issued to retiring partner . 1881.. (Abdurehiman Vs Sethu Madhavan).P.Director nominated by a Central Government or State Government or a Financial Corporation owned or controlled by Central Government or State Government cannot be prosecuted for dishonour of cheque . 142.).Dishonour of cheque . 1881. (Umraz Khan Vs A.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.An application or affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay is not necessary Sufficient cause can be shown in the complaint itself or in the application for condonation of delay or in the affidavit.K. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 539 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 152 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 92 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 553 #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Evidence as to retirement from partnership not adduced .Separate notice to Managing Director who signed the cheque on behalf of company is not required . (Haryana State Small Industries Vs Laxmi Agro Industries)..) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Company Nominated Director . 138-. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 856 (KERALA) #21: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (V. (Abdurehiman Vs Sethu Madhavan).Dishonour of cheque . 141-. 138-.Tendering of cheque for the second time will not frustrate the cause of action which arose on tendering the cheque for the second time.Notice After amendment of Act notice can be sent within one month of receipt of information of dishonour of cheque.If there is a delay in filing complaint Court should give notice to the respondent and after hearing the respondent Court should satisfy itself as to whether complainant had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the specified period .Saxena Vs State). 1881.Prakash Rao Vs U. 138. Vs State of Bihar & Anr. Jeyaraman). 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (MADRAS) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 869 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Pullengadi Service Co-op..) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 842 (S. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (MADRAS) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 869 (MADRAS) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 and 141 of N. 1881. (Ramanand Vs Kailasnath & Anr.I. 1881.C.Company .Dishonour of cheque .Secretary signatory of cheque .)..Cheque alleged to be forged before filing complaint . 138.Cheque alleged to be forged before filing complaint . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 601 (P&H) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Selvaraj Vs N. 138.) : JT 2007(2) SC 233 : 2007(2) SCALE 36 : 2007 AIR SCW 656 : 2007(4) MAH LJ 421 : 2007(3) SCC 693 : 2007(58) ACC 1090 : 2007(52) AIC 235 : AIR 2007 SC 912 : 2007 CLC 163 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.482 Cr.P. 1881. even if allegations in complaint are taken to be correct in its entirety the same do not disclose any offence against the Director ..Complaint dismissed in default .Proceedings against Director quashed.). complainant cannot recover the money from the accused .A party cannot be made to suffer for negligence of his counsel .Held..C..Jeyaraman).No interference called for.Received back unserved as door locked for several days . 389.Company Company and its Directors approached complainant for grant of loan . 141-.By imposing the sentence of imprisonment alone.Notice . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (S. 420 r/w section 511 IPC . 1881..P. Act then matter has to proceed for expeditious disposal and defence is to be raised before concerned Magistrate and is not to be considered in a petition under S.C. 000/and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 20 days . 138-.5.A2 M.). does not arise and complainant is at liberty to file complaint and take action as per law.Accused directed to pay a compensation equal to that of cheque amount. 138-.Director No averment in complaint as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of business of Company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning . 468. 141-.). 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 509 (BOMBAY) #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 243 (S. 138-. 138-. 1881. 138-. 1881.It must be deemed that notice has been served Order returning complaint set aside with a direction to take the complaint on file and proceed in accordance with law.Crucial date for determining date when offence was committed is when cheque is returned by the bank unpaid .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . (Selvaraj Vs N.Dishonour of cheque . (Kairali Marketing & Processing Co-op.Compensation . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 624 (KERALA) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint under section 138 of the Act ..Bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is not applicable .Dishonour of cheque .Held. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 622 (MADRAS) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. (Ramanand Vs Kailasnath & Anr. if offence is committed pertaining to document prior to its production in Court and when it was not in custody of Court then bar u/s 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr..Counsel also did not appear . 138.Dishonour of cheque . of company and A3 to A6 its Directors .S. (Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.Plea to quash complaint on the ground that there was no proper averment and notice of offence was framed mechanically .).Accused lodged complaint under sections 464.Saluja Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd.If there are requisite averments in complaint under Ss.. 1881. Society Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . .Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Dishonour of cheque . which were dishonoured . 1881.As per loan agreement Company issued three cheques. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT .Dismissal set aside. 1881.On date fixed complainant fell ill .Society Ltd.S.. 141-.A person can be prosecuted for offence u/s 138 only if at the time the offence was committed he was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company. (Pavulmanickam Vs M.Jeyachandran). 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (DELHI) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Co-operative Society . (G.Dismissal of complaint in default . 138-.Signatory of cheque if ceases to be Secretary on the date when offence was committed cannot be prosecuted u/s 138 of the Act .Accused directed to pay compensation equal to that of cheque amount.By imposing the sentence of imprisonment alone complainant cannot recover the money from accused . (Kulwant Singh Vs Balhar Singh).D.Compensation .In the interest of justice both matters ordered to be heard and disposed by same Court together and at the same time.Accused convicted and sentenced to three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. Vs M/s.).Instrument void in law .).No action lies u/s 138 of the Act. held..Acquittal.Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground. 1881. 1881.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act...Absence of averment in complaint that accused is incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm and as to how and in what manner he was so responsible .Sasidaran Nayar). 1881.).Notice . 138-.`Stop payment' .) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Prima facie evidence shows that petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence and he cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company .For valid reasons .Only the drawer of cheque is liable .).Ink of signature different from the ink of other writings of cheque Entire cheque amount found not due in view of admission of receipt of certain amount . proper.N.Accused did not dispute the handwriting on the cheque .Service of notice Where sender dispatched notice by post with correct address written on it.Summoning of petitioner quashed. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1099 (BOMBAY) #17: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 739 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1038 (DELHI) .Material alteration Account number changed without consent of drawer as drawer of cheque had closed the account of which the cheque was issued .K.Cheque issued for discharge of a time barred debt . Vs State of Bihar & Anr. 138-.). 138-. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .CASES 658 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 509 (BOMBAY) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. then presumption can be drawn that it is served on the addressee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non service. (P.Company Prosecution of Company.. (Anil Kumar Vs State & Anr. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 526 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 440 (KARNATAKA) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 769 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 224 (P&H) : 2007(4) AKAR 554 : 2007(50) ALLINDCAS 322 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . (Shekhar Suman Vs Narender & Ors.Opinion of handwriting expert not necessary ..Petitioner did not sign the cheque . 1881. Managing Director and Director .Dishonour of cheque .Authentic and unimpeachable documents placed on record to show that petitioner was not Chairman of Company and inspite of opportunity granted complainant did not controvert the same .Partnership firm .Legally enforceable debt Rebuttal of presumption ...No legally enforceable debt .A payee or an endorser is not liable under Section 138 of the Act.Burden of proving that cheque was not dishonoured for sufficient funds and was dishonoured for valid reasons is on the accused .Signatures . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Amounts to material alteration . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 715 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1031 (RAJASTHAN) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 138-.Handwriting expert . 138-. (P.Petitioner denied that he was ever Chairman of Company .Held.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr. (V.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Application filed by accused to that effect rightly dismissed. its Chairman.Dishonour of cheque .N.Rama Shetty Vs N. (Mangal Singh & Anr.Complaint qua petitioner quashed.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.No evidence except affidavit of complainant . (B. (Armstrong Builders & Developers Vs Vishvanath Naik). 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 815 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 536 (KARNATAKA) #15: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Somashekara Reddy)..Khurana Chemicals). 141-. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 698 (PATNA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 999 (PATNA) #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Dishonour of cheque . such a cheque is within the sweep of Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. (Nagendra Prasad Singh & Anr. 138. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.Krishna Reddy Vs B. 1881. 1881. 141-.Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge of a liability already existing under the promissory note. in whole or any part thereof. 138-.International Ltd.Appeal against .Dishonour of cheque .Drawer held guilty of offence. (P.C.N.. 118-. (Anil Kumar Vs State & Anr.) 438 : 2006 CRI LJ 1541 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 494 : 2006(2) AIRBOMR 275 : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 474 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 438 : 2006(1) BOMCR(CRI) 8 : 2006(4) ICC 278 : 2006(2) RECCRIR 950 .Dishonour of cheque .Prosecution if ultimately found to be frivolous or otherwise mala fide.Partnership firm Sleeping partner . there is no legal bar for the debtor agreeing to pay the time barred debt ..).Can be served either through Registered Post or through UPC .Cheque constitutes an agreement or promise by the debtor to pay the time barred debt .S.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Court may direct registration of case against complainant for mala fide prosecution of accused .Jain Vs Sharad Jagtiani). (Dilip S.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER..C. Vs R. awarded by Magistrate as a condition precedent for suspending substantive sentence. & Anr.) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). & T.Channabasavardhya).) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S.) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S.Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note .Director Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that at the relevant time he was not the Director of Company as this question can only be decided at the trial. 138.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.K.Time barred debt Loan transaction taking place in 1994 and cheque for repayment of loan issued for the year 1999 .Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 739 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1038 (DELHI) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.C.#21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Mere fact that a partner has financial stake in the business of the firm is not sufficient in itself to attract culpable liability under Section 141(1) of the Act . presumption of service of notice arises unless the drawer proves that it was not received by him in fact and that he was not responsible for such non service.B. (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Accused is also entitled to file a suit for damages. 1881. 138-. 139-. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 781 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 887 (DELHI) #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.B.C.) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.. (V.To attract culpable liability a partner must be in charge of and responsible to the firm to the conduct of its business.) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR 228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.).Appellate Court has power to direct payment of compensation... 1881.Misdescription of accused as proprietor whereas he was a partner . & Anr. 138-. 139.Dahanukar Vs Kotak Mahindra Co. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 975 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) KAR LJ 238 : ILR 2006 KAR 4242 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1881.Notice if dispatched through UPC with correct address of the drawer written on it.Partnership firm .Narasimha Rao Vs Venkataram R. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.Not liable .Suspension of sentence .Held. 1881. (M/s S.Criminal complaint . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER. 1881. 1881.Company .Mohandas Vs M/s Jayasamudri Trading Co. Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . (K.Notice . 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S.Conviction .No fresh consideration is required for debtor's promise to pay the time barred debt . 138-..).Loan amount became time barred in the year 1997 .K. (H.Complaint not to be rejected on this ground. 1881.). 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 198 (BOMBAY) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.). 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 921 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 86 (BOMBAY) : 2006 ALL MR (CRI. A..Notice has to be read as a whole .However.141 cannot be said to be .Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Power of attorney holder can file complaint .Notice .Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable . 1881. 138-.L. (Muthukaruppan Vs Raghavan). issuance of cheque.P.Dishonour of cheque .Notice .. 138-.Dishonour of cheque ..Without there being such a averment in the complaint requirement of S. (Balraj Kumar Vs Smt. 1881. etc.Complaint .Death during pendency of revision .. (Mohammed Samdani Basha Vs Syed Issac Basha).Proof . (Raju Vs Jaiprakash).Held. the person accused was in charge of.Sworn statement of power of attorney can be recorded at the very inception . even after the death of the accused who is the revision petitioner the revision petition survives and Court can pass appropriate orders with regard to the sentence of fine. dishonour of the cheque.R's . 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 982 (MADRAS) : 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 109 (MADRAS) : 2006(2) KLT 996 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. on cheque being dishonoured it is the principal who is liable. (Raju Vs Jaiprakash).Pendency of Not a bar for launching proceedings u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 148 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 166 (KARNATAKA) #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.D. (Smt. 138-. 1881. 138-. 1881. amounts.Dishonour of cheque .Company . 1881. 141-. their dates. during trial payee has to enter the witness box and depose about the legal liability of the drawer. 138-. 1881.#4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 135 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 203 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 58 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 754 : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 448 : 2006(4) RECCIVR 799 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Premature complaint .Civil suit . 138-. (Mohammed Samdani Basha Vs Syed Issac Basha).Held. issuance of statutory notice.If cognizance is taken after expiry of 15 days contemplated under Section 138 then premature presentation will not affect the case of the complainant. (Viswanathan Vs State of Kerala).Drawer is absolved of his liability if payment of amount covered by cheque is made within 15 days of receipt of notice . 138-. is a clear proof of service of notice.When these particulars are clearly set out in the notice the object of giving notice is satisfied . 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 145 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 255 (KERALA) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque signed by authorised signatory ... presentation of cheque for payment.Kuldeep Kaur). 1881. and responsible for the conduct of business of the company . 1881.Bhardwaj).Reference to the settlement entered into between the parties and liability of the drawer to the tune of double the amount do not render the notice illegal and discharge of the accused. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Kamla & Ors. 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 438 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (KARNATAKA) : 2006 CRI LJ 1586 : AIR 2006 KAR 546 NOC : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 475 : 2006(2) AIRKARR 342 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 438 NOC : 2006(55) ALLCRIC 38 SOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 221 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 944 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 76 JS : 2006(4) BANKCAS 379 : 2006 BANKJ 531 : 2006(2) CRIMES 525 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 1400 : 2006(2) KCCR 835 : 2006(2) KANTLJ 231 : 2006(3) RECCRIR 19 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 138.Conviction u/s 138 NI Act ... the date of presentation of the cheques and the dates when the cheques were returned with the endorsement of the bank as to the reasons of dishonour and demand of money .Proceedings u/s 138 cannot be initiated against legal heirs of the person who issued the cheque.There should be a clear averment in the complaint that at the time the offence was committed.Demand of double the amount Provision as to issuance of notice is satisfied when notice is issued within prescribed time. 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 438 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (KARNATAKA) : 2006 CRI LJ 1586 : AIR 2006 KAR 546 NOC : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 475 : 2006(2) AIRKARR 342 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 438 NOC : 2006(55) ALLCRIC 38 SOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 221 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 944 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 76 JS : 2006(4) BANKCAS 379 : 2006 BANKJ 531 : 2006(2) CRIMES 525 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 1400 : 2006(2) KCCR 835 : 2006(2) KANTLJ 231 : 2006(3) RECCRIR 19 #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. Vs C. at the correct address with particular details of cheque. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 148 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 166 (KARNATAKA) #11: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Anirudhan Vs Philip Jacob).Partners .C. 138-. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 349 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (BOMBAY) : 2006(5) MAH LJ 705 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.C.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S. 1881. 141-.Dishonour of cheque .Conviction .Dishonour of cheque .Material alteration Alteration in the year `96' . (Supply House Vs Ullas). 138-. (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. 1881. 138. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 073 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 96 (KER) : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 309 : 2006(2) KERLJ 405 #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs R. 138-. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 182 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 130 (KERALA) : 2006(3) KLT 554 #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 9-.Order of imprisonment and fine .) : 2005(4) Criminal Court Cases 502 (S.Holder in due course .No order as to compensation .Channabasavardhya). no offence is committed u/s 138 of the Act. 1881.Complaint can be filed through power of attorney holder .To make a partner liable he must be in charge of and responsible to the firm in the conduct of business of firm. 1881.In absence of such an averment it cannot be said that partners are guilty of the offence .C...Firm .B.) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S.Order of sentence and fine set aside Matter remitted for decision afresh on the question of sentence and award of compensation. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 424 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 732 (BOMBAY) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . (Starline Agencies Vs R.Goods not supplied .No averment in complaint that partners were incharge of and were responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm .Sentence suspended subject to deposit of 25% of compensation amount . (2005(2) Apex Court Judgments 544 (S. 138..) Followed).Held.Dishonour of cheque .Amounts to material alteration .C.Proceedings against partners quashed. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 555 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 132 (KER.C.Cheque issued alongwith order for supply of goods .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . imposition of such condition not improper.P.Agencies). (D. 1881.). (Rajendra Ramsing Ghorpade Vs Shikshan Prasarak Mandal).Power of Attorney holder is competent to speak of facts within his exclusive personal knowledge. 138-.Partner .. 139-. (Mohandas Vs Jayasamudri Trading Co.Dishonour of cheque .C. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S. (Suresh Vs Satpuda Urban Credit Coop. 1881. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 .Ltd.Accused acquitted.Appeal against conviction Suspension of sentence . 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 380 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER..) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S. Vs Green Earth Asphalt & Power Pvt. 138-.Holder in due course Purchaser of cheque is holder in due course if there is an endorsement in favour of the purchaser. 138.) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR 228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2006 CRILJ 4330 : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 90 : 2007(1) KERLJ 63 : 2006(3) KERLT 921 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.)..) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 1881.) : 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 483 (S. 1881. Society Ltd.B.Cheque dishonoured .Not liable if he merely derives profits from the company . 1881.). 138-..satisfied. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank).Jain & Ors.. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 325 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 934 (BOMBAY) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Prosecution does not lie against a partner on the simple accusation in the complaint that such person was the partner of the firm .S. Received back `unclaimed' .`B' made an endorsement in favour of Bank .Cheque number different than that reflected in the settlement deed entered into between the partners . (Uppinangady Grama Panchayat.Due service of notice is available only when an intimation as to arrival of registered letter in post office is given to addressee and addressee fails to collect it from post office.Bank becomes holder in due course .Cheque dishonoured . 138-. 1881..Premises taken on rent .Mere giving an intimation without demand of cheque amount is not a notice within the meaning of S. 138-..Cheque dishonoured .Notice .Narayana Prabhu). 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 316 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 1169 (KAR) : 2006 CRILJ 3141 : 2006(4) AIRKARR 243 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 750 : 2006 BANKJ 648 #25: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.Cheque issued in respect of future liabilities not in existence as on date .Court not to consider this issue in the context of the settlement at the stage of charge or discharge of the accused. 1881.Premises vacated before the expiry of lease period in breach of agreement .138 is applicable.Number of cheque presented..Provision of S.. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 .Cause of action . 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #1: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.For prosecution u/s 138 of the Act it is necessary that cheque should have been issued in respect of either past or current existing debt or other legal liability. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (P&H) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Balraj Kumar Vs Smt.P.Kuldeep Kaur). 138-. 138-. 1881.Offence u/s 138 cannot be inferred . 1881..).Question of liability is a matter of defence that can be raised at the appropriate stage .Dishonour of cheque .Factum of agreement of liability admitted .Dishonour of cheque ..Held.Cheques issued in advance towards future rental liability . complaint is within time.Held.Cheques issued in advance towards future rental liability .Cheque dishonoured ..Drawer of cheque cannot take any benefit of different number being mentioned in settlement deed . number of cheque reflected in notice and number of cheque mentioned in complaint same .. there is no legal obligation on the part of accused to effect clearance of cheque issued towards the rental liabilities for the period he is not in occupation .P. 138-.) #2: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Different cheque number .Dishonour of cheque .138 of the Act . 1881.On dishonour of cheque for the first time an intimation given that cheque is dishonoured for want of sufficient fund .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 961 (P&H) : 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 448 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 50 (KER. (Bal Krishnan Sharma Vs Tek Ram).No existing or past liability at the time of issuance of cheque ..Narayana Prabhu). 1881.Dishonour of cheque -Cheque issued after closure of account . (Chacko Vs Kurian). Puttur Vs P. (Uppinangady Grama Panchayat. bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer or the payee or indorsee thereof . (Gulshan Kumar Vs Dr. 138-. (Bank of Baroda Vs Philip Thomas).A person who issues the cheque which ultimately turns out to be bad is the person on whom the liability can be fastened under the Act .Supply of goods on credit Blank cheque issued in respect of uncertain future liability .Means any person who for consideration became the possessor of promissory note. 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank).) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 960 (H.Remedy available is to sue for damages for breach of contract.) : 2007 CRILJ 2838 : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 746 : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 274 : 2006(3) KERLJ 226 : 2006(3) KERLT 729 #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . Puttur Vs P. 138-.Accrual Cheque presented twice . 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 700 (H.`A' gave loan to `B' Bank purchased cheque from `B' .Complaint against `A' maintainable. 1881. cause of action arose when notice of demand was issued on dishonour of cheque for the second time and complaint filed thereafter .Alka Arora and Anr. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 405 (KERALA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 246 (KERALA) #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.If a cheque has been issued by some other person from his account then in that eventuality nobody except the person who draws this cheque can be held liable.Dishonour of cheques . 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 422 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 316 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 1169 (KAR) : 2006 CRILJ 3141 : 2006(4) AIRKARR 243 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 750 : 2006 BANKJ 648 #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. . 1881. 1881. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (GUJARAT) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 433 (GUJARAT) : 2006 CRI LJ 1660 : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 686 : 2006(4) AIRBOMR 582 (NOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 740 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 183 JS : 2006 BANKJ 263 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) GUJ 363 : 2006(1) GUJLH 211 : 2005(3) GUJLR 2474 #8: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 000/. 138-. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (J&K) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 896 (J&K) : 2006 CRI LJ 1909 : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 681 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 374 : 2005 JKJ(SUPP) 638 #12: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.`A' is not liable for prosecution. (Mehta Prafulchandra Kalidas Vs Patel Cheljibhai Kalidas & Anr.1.Single line in cross examination that first talk of business deal took place in Jan-Feb.).Complaint under S. 1881.Goods defective and not according to specifications hence rejected and returned .of cheque does not attract prosecution u/s 138 of the Act. (Keygien Global Limited.in favour of complainant which was dishonoured .Accused raised defence at pre trial stage .Without their formal proof by evidence before the trial Court it cannot be held in these proceedings that cheque was issued without consideration or that the same was obtained by complainant fraudulently .I.Dishonour of cheque .).P..Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .by Magistrate not proper. 00. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (CALCUTTA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 207 (CALCUTTA) #6: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 014 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 1168 (KAR) : 2006 CRILJ 3140 : 2006(4) AIRKARR 242 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 749 #5: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Tamil Nadu Retrenched Census Employees Association Vs Thennan).No evidence led to rebut presumption .B..5000/. 2000 not sufficient to disbelieve complainant's case . 50. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (GUJARAT) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 433 (GUJARAT) : 2006 CRI LJ 1660 : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 686 : 2006(4) AIRBOMR 582 (NOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 740 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 183 JS : 2006 BANKJ 263 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) GUJ 363 : 2006(1) GUJLH 211 : 2005(3) GUJLR 2474 #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1 to 3 clearly established fact of transaction between parties prior to 2000 Presumption u/s 139 in favour of complainant .Discharge of accused Summons case .Complaint under S. (Asim Kumar Saha Vs Nepal Mahato & Anr. Act Magistrate can only impose a sentence of fine not exceeding Rs.Power of Magistrate to impose sentence of fine exceeding Rs. 000/. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 595 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 995 (KARNATAKA) #11: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. imposition of penalty or fine of Rs. 138-.Ltd.No liability to pay under cheque.Arrears of fees due to an Advocate is a legally enforceable debt. 00. Act filed by private party .I. 138-. (Asim Kumar Saha Vs Nepal Mahato & Anr. 000/.Dishonour of cheque . Bangalore & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Required ingredients fully proved .Dishonour of cheque .Considering the defence Magistrate ordered stoppage of proceedings and issued show cause notice to complainant to pay compensation for filing false complaint Illegal hence quashed.Discharge of accused Summons case .Cheque issued for supply of goods . 138-.`A' gave said amount to `B' who issued cheque of Rs.5000/.Shreyas Agro Services Pvt. 138-.).138 of N... (M/s.Complaint cannot be quashed.). 1881.C.)... Vs Chandrakumar S. (Mehta Prafulchandra Kalidas Vs Patel Cheljibhai Kalidas & Anr.Advocates fee . 1881. 138-.Evidence has to be read as a whole Evidence of PWs. 1881..Non production of papers of income tax by complainant in trial not a ground to disbelieve complainant's case . Act filed by private party . (Kanta Verma Vs Surinder Gupta & Anr.138 of N.Complainant gave Rs.I.Provisions of S.).Dishonour of cheque .2.. 2.). 138-.Quashing of complaint Accused took plea that cheque was issued without consideration and was obtained by fraud Allegations in complaint prima facie made out offence .. (Gulshan Kumar Vs .258 not attracted.29 Cr.Accused convicted under Section 138 of N. 1881. Bangalore Vs Madhav Impex.to `A' .Materials which accused seeks to rely upon for contesting the allegations made in the complaint are yet to be proved . 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 521 (CALCUTTA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 207 (CALCUTTA) #7: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Conviction not liable to be interfered with.In view of provisions of S.It is not a case instituted otherwise than on complaint .Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (MADRAS) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 512 (MADRAS) : AIR 2007 NOC 199 (MADRAS) : 2007(3) AKAR 412 : 2006(3) KERLT 782 #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. ).) 909 : 2006(34) OCR 588 : 2006(3) PAT LJR 282 : 2006(2) PLR 787 : 2006(2) RAJ CRI C 464 : 2006(3) RAJ LW 2528 : 2006(3) RCR(CIV) 50 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.C. 138. 000/. Consultancy & Ors.C.This matter is to be decided after recording evidence Complainant can prove that drawer of cheque knew about notice and deliberately evaded service and got a false endorsement made only to defeat the process of law .) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 101 (S.P. (Sayeed Ishaque Memon Vs Ansari Naseer Ahmed & Anr. (Jitesh Kumawat Vs Ashok Kumar & Anr. can be given on affidavit. 1881.Notice .C. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (P&H) #13: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Compounding of offence During special leave before Supreme Court both parties filed joint petition for compromise Compromise lawful . 1881.Dishonour of cheque . Ltd.. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . Hyderabad Vs M/s C.Alka Arora and Anr. (Jose Cristovam Pinto & Anr. 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (S.. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 74 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 559 (RAJASTHAN) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 1881.).C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 2897 : AIR 2006 SC 2179 : 2006 AIR SCW 2757 : 2006(3) AIR JHAR RHCR 324 : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 316 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 688 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 21346 : 2006(4) ALL MR 145 : 2006(3) ALT(CRI. 138-. 25.C.Death of complainant Son of deceased is entitled to continue the proceedings.Limitation expiring on a holiday .) 6543 : 2006(2) MAD LW(CRI.) 2863 : 2006 BANKING J 562 : 2006(3) MAH LJ 369 : #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Drawer can also prove that postal endorsement is false. (D.Dr...5.).Dishonour of cheque . 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 746 (A. & Ors.).Conviction set aside. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (ORISSA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 597 (ORISSA) : 2006(2) CRIMES 220 (ORISSA) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Initial statement u/s 200 Cr.. 138-.) #18: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Mediworld Infotech.) 31 : 2006(3) CTC 591 : 2006 CAL CRI LR 381 : 2006(4) CIV LJ 911 : 2006(131) COM CAS 663 : 2006(73) COR LA 140 : 2006(2) CRIMES 282 : 2006(2) CUR CC 312 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 007 : 2006(130) DLT 534 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 193 : 2006(4) ICC 26 : 2006(3) JLJR 233 : 2006(5) KANT LJ 32 : 2006(3) KLT 94 : 2006(2) LW CRI 909 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI. 138-..Power of Magistrate to impose fine Rs. Vs Sahajanand Investments Pvt.Defence of accused cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance and the same can be considered appropriately at the stage of trial.C. 138-. 138-. (M/s Prasanna Gases Vs State).Vinod Shivappa Vs Nanda Belliappa). 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 783 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 170 (RAJASTHAN) #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 195 (A.P.P.) 145 : 2006(6) SCC 456 : 2006(8) SCJ 63 : 2006(70) SEBI&CL 329 : 2006(7) SRJ 25 : 2006 SC CRI R 1243 : 2006(6) SCALE 277 : 2006 SCC(CRI..Dishonour of cheque .P.Partnership firm .Complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold on the ground of non service of notice with postal endorsement of 'refusal' or 'unclaimed' or 'not found' . (Panda Leasing & Properties Ltd. Vs Hemant Kumar Moharana).P. 000/.Cheque dishonoured . 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 294 (A.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 057 (S. 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 01 (S.Complaint can be filed on the next working day.only . 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 77 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 276 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 1526 : AIR 2006 NOC 458 (NOC) : 2006(3) ALJ 502 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR BOM HCR 086 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 60 (SOC) : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 421 : 2006(43) ALL IND CAS 174 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.E.P.Dishonour of cheque .No averment that applicant is partner of the firm or that he was incharge and responsible to the firm at the time of issuance of cheque ..) 276 : 2006(2) BANK CLR 429 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 465 : 2006 BANK J 577 : 2006(2) BOM CR(CRI.5.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 695 (A.) : AIR 2007 NOC 271 (AP) : 2007(4) AKAR 601 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 116 JS : 2006(1) ANDHLT(CRI) 469 AP #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Sentence of fine of Rs.) 114 : 2006(4) SUPREME 540 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .Sentence of fine modified and fine of Rs. 000/.1.).I. 145-. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . (Tripuraneni Sri Prasad Vs State of A.Permission granted to compromise the dispute . & Anr.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (S.. 1881. 1881.Process against applicant quashed. 1881.imposed and in default of payment of fine petitioner to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.) : 2006 CRI LJ 2566 : 2006(5) ALJ(NOC) 999 : 2006(6) AKAR(NOC) 822 : 2006(5) AIRBOMR 796 NOC: 2006(2) ALD (CRI) 95 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 524 : 2006 ALLMR (CRI) 174 : 2006(2) ANDHLT(CRI) 125 AP : 2006(4) EASTCRIC 271 #16: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (A.Complaint filed by Managing Director .) 6543 : 2006(2) MAD LW(CRI. 000/.Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that petitioner ceased to be Director of company with effect from 18.). 138-..C & C Enterprises.Proceedings and process issued against L.Quashing of complaint .Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold on the ground of non service of notice. Vs Rajesh Damodar Sarode & Anr.5.C.If complainant is able to prove that drawer of cheque knew about notice and deliberately evaded service and got a false endorsement made only to defeat the process of law.P.).P.Presumption is that notice was served. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 131 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 751 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 2229 : AIR 2006 BON 781 (NOC) : 2006(4) ALJ 700 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR 553 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 271 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 88 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.482 Cr.) : 2006(6) ALJ 697 : 2006(2) ANDHLT(CRI) 316 AP #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Ltd.'Account freezed' on account of winding up proceedings . 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 676 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452 (P&H) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. 1881.R's quashed . & Anr.2003 .Received back with postal endorsement 'Not claimed' . 1881.Company . 1881.C. 138.A responsible officer or office bearer of Company can file complaint u/s 138 of the Act Question whether such officer had been specifically authorised to file the complaint on behalf of the Company does not arise at all.) 276 : 2006(2) BANK CLR 429 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 465 : 2006 BANK J 577 : 2006(2) BOM CR(CRI.P.Dishonour of cheque .) 909 : 2006(34) OCR 588 : 2006(3) PAT LJR 282 : 2006(2) PLR 787 : 2006(2) RAJ CRI C 464 : 2006(3) RAJ LW 2528 : 2006(3) RCR(CIV) 50 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.Non availability of addressee . (M/s. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . Mangalore Vs B. 138-.C. 141-. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 653 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2006 NOC 976 (KAR) : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 875 : 2006(3) AIRKARR 445 : 2006(3) AIRJHAR(NOC) 852 : 2006(3) ALCRILR 545 : 2006 BANKJ 650 : 2006(131) COMCAS 798 : 2006(73) CORLA 165 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 139 : 2006(4) ICC 284 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 1929 : 2006(3) KANTLJ 397 #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138-.There is no rule of universal application that in all case where notice is not served on account of non availability of the addresse.It means that accused was in the knowledge that a notice is sent and he intentionally avoided to receive the same . 138-.) : AIR 2007 NOC 119 (A.Cheque dishonoured . (Sarathi Leasing Finance Limited.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 057 (S. (D.. (Counter Point Advt.Offence by company . 138-..) 872 : 2006(4) CUR CC 212 : 2006(4) CUR CRI R 296 : 2006(4) ICC 381 : 2006(3) MAH LJ 845 #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Not maintainable . 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 01 (S.awarded for launching proceeding which was absolutely untenable in law. 1881.) 145 : 2006(6) SCC 456 : 2006(8) SCJ 63 : 2006(70) SEBI&CL 329 : 2006(7) SRJ 25 : 2006 SC CRI R 1243 : 2006(6) SCALE 277 : 2006 SCC(CRI. 2006(3) CIVILL COURT CASES 286 (MADRAS) #25: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2006 CRI LJ 2897 : AIR 2006 SC 2179 : 2006 AIR SCW 2757 : 2006(3) AIR JHAR RHCR 324 : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 316 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 688 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 21346 : 2006(4) ALL MR 145 : 2006(3) ALT(CRI.C.Naresh Purushotham Vs Harita Finance Limited).Dishonour of cheque .P.Complaint against L.P. (Atul Kohli & Anr.Cheque bounced on 25.Notice . 1881. Hyderabad Vs State of A.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 924 (A.Legally enforceable deft Money lending business alleged .Compensation of Rs. P.Drawer can also establish by evidence that postal endorsement of 'refusal' or unclaimed' or 'not found' during delivery time to be false .Notice ..) 31 : 2006(3) CTC 591 : 2006 CAL CRI LR 381 : 2006(4) CIV LJ 911 : 2006(131) COM CAS 663 : 2006(73) COR LA 140 : 2006(2) CRIMES 282 : 2006(2) CUR CC 312 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 007 : 2006(130) DLT 534 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 193 : 2006(4) ICC 26 : 2006(3) JLJR 233 : 2006(5) KANT LJ 32 : 2006(3) KLT 94 : 2006(2) LW CRI 909 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI. the Court shall presume service of notice .Freezing of account is not on account of act of complainant but it is on account of act of accused ..If a person is advancing money casually and not professional .Narayana Shetty).Negotiable Instruments Act.5.Company . (Savita & Ors. rep by its Director.2003 Complainant seriously disputed the genuineness of resolution passed by Board of Directors Disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in summary proceedings under S.Company having issued cheque for subsisting liability is bound to see that cheques are honoured at any cost .) 1307 : 2006(4) BANK CAS 490 : 2006(2) BOM CR(CRI.Accused has to answer the claim of the complainant even in case the accounts are freezed on account of winding up proceedings initiated against the accused..Vinod Shivappa Vs Nanda Belliappa).) 114 : 2006(4) SUPREME 540 #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). Mr.This is a matter of evidence . the court must presume service of notice . 1881.6.R's of the person who issued the cheque .It depends upon facts of each case .) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 101 (S. C. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 421 (S. 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 411 (S.Packaging Private Ltd.. by its Managing Director & Ors.P.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.) : 2006(9) SCC 340 : 2006(4) RCR(CRL. there is no necessity for obtaining any licence and in that event the debt is legally enforceable. rep. (M/s G.Dishonour of cheque . & Ors.. Vs Ashoka Alloy Steel Ltd. 1881.Complaint quashed against petitioner.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1999 : 2006(4) ALJ 677 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALD (CRI.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452 (H.P.Dishonour of cheque ..S.Sales & Anr.Can be filed by power of attorney holder of payee .Limitation Day on which cause of action accrues has to be excluded for reckoning period of limitation for filing complaint.).) : 2006 CRI LJ 1993 : 2006(4) ALJ 678 (NOC) : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 84 (SOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 378 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 491 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.Complaint .Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 396 (H. 1881.). 138-. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .138 of the Act.C.138 is applicable to a cheque drawn on a closed account.money-lender.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 495 (S. (M.Credential Finance Ltd.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S.Provision of S.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 406 : 2006(1) SHIM LC 385 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . Vs M/s S.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT .) 476 : 2006(4) ICC 192 : 2006(2) RCR(CRI.).) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD LW (CRI.S. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 366 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 257 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 214 : 2006(1) ALJ (NOC) 177 : 2006(2) AKAR (NOC) 209 : 2006(1) AIRJHAR(NOC) 107 : 2006(2) ALLCRILR 353 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 2782 : 2006 BANK J 244 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 169 : 2006(2) CRIMES 270 #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Conviction set aside.Can be filed by power of attorney holder .Packaging Private Ltd.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.Dishonour of cheque .S.Sales & Anr. (Suman Madanlal Bora Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr. (Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.) 665 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 788 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.C.) 917 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 356 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 324 (NOC) : AIR 2006 BOM 921 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 539 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR HCR 648 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 434 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39 #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S. 1881.Rao Vs M/s.. 138-. 1881. 1881. (M. 1881.) 177 (JS) : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint not disclosing that at the time the offence was committed petitioner was in any way incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm .Issuance of cheque after closure of account Cheque dishonoured .) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 280 (A.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S. & Anr. (M/s G. 138-.P. 138-. Vs M/s S.Cheque if issued for security or for any other purpose the same does not come within the purview of S. he can appear as a witness on behalf of complainant.When a power of attorney holder has full knowledge of the transaction his statement can be recorded by Magistrate for verification of the complaint..Complaint . & Anr. 141-.Business dealing . (S..Account books not produced by complainant Contention of accused that cheque was issued as security believed .Complaint against partners .).C.) 707 : 2006(1) BOM CRI R 243 : 2006(4) MAH LJ 369 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque alleged to be towards outstanding dues .).C.).) 58 : 2006(4) RCR(C) 152 #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.J. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 330 (A.S. & Anr. 138-.) 201 (JS) : 2006 BANK JS 901 : 2006(4) CIV LJ 886 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 311 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.C.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 : 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.V.Complaint . (Bal Krishnan Sharma Vs Tek Ram). 1881. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 366 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 257 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 214 : 2006(1) ALJ (NOC) 177 : 2006(2) AKAR (NOC) 209 : 2006(1) AIRJHAR(NOC) 107 : 2006(2) ALLCRILR 353 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 2782 : 2006 BANK J 244 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 169 : 2006(2) CRIMES 270 #6: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 411 (S.J.Power of attorney holder cannot depose on behalf of complainant However.P. 138. ) (DB) #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.204(2) does not override S.A witness whose name does not appear in the list of witnesses (in the instant case list of witnesses not filed) can be examined as a witness in view of S.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1999 : 2006(4) ALJ 677 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALD (CRI.) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD LW (CRI.Complainant doing finance business and having a Pvt.) 1560 : 2006(2) BOM CR (CRI..) 544 : 2006(4) BANK CAS 424 : 2006 BANK J 557 : 2006(2) BOM CR (CRI.But in the instant case loan given in his individual capacity .HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.) 917 #13: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. dishonour of the cheque.It was not elicited from complainant that he is financing to may others including the accused in his individual capacity .Dishonour of cheque . rep.P. Co.) 241 #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. (Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale Vs Capt.Compensation Suspension during pendency of appeal . (S.Dishonour of cheque .P.Dishonour of cheque .) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 : 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.Director of company whether incharge and responsible for the day to day affairs of the company is a question which has to be answered at the trial and complaint cannot be quashed on this ground. 1881.Raghavan).) (DB) #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint can be filed by power of attorney holder .P.Held. issuance of cheque.P.357 Cr. the payee will have to come to the box and speak from his knowledge about the legal liability of the drawer. 138-..Haneef Vs M.Shafath Ali Khan & Anr.Compensation .C.Rao Vs M/s. by its Managing Director & Ors.Shafath Ali Khan & Anr.) 476 : 2006(4) ICC 192 : 2006(2) RCR(CRI. 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (A. (S. 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1061 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 653 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 1078 : 2006(3) ALJ 510 (NOC) : 2006 AKAR 344 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR HCR 443 (NOC): 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 424 (NOC): 2006(55) ALL CRI C 24 (SOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 767 : 2006(41) ALL IND CAS 407 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 330 (A..) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI. 138-. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 961 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) RCR(CRI. Ltd.357 Cr. debt is legally enforceable debt.) (DB) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A. 138-.) 665 : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 788 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (DELHI) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 971 (DELHI) : 127 (2006) DLT 670 : AIR 2007 NOC 45 (DELHI) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) .).P.C..P.) (DB) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.Can be enforced by imposing a sentence in default.254(1) of the Code . 138-. (Pankaj Narang Vs State & Anr.S.).Legally enforceable debt Money financing business . 1881.) 159 : 2006(2) CRIMES 248 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 66 : 2006(2) ICC 693 : 2006(1) MAH LJ 700 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Haneef Vs M.) 273 (JS) : 2006(3) BANK CAS 423 : 2006(1) CTC 635 : 2006(2) CRIMES 239 : 2006(2) CUR CRI R 277 : 2006(3) ICC 195 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.Sworn statement of power of attorney can be recorded at the very inception .) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 280 (A.).Compensation .Company .) 429 : 2006(4) CRIMES 434 #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Credential Finance Ltd. 1881. (S.) 713 : 2006 CRI LJ 3114 : 2006(6) AKAR 818 (NOC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 96 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI. 1881.Only during the course of trial. 1881..Atul Wasudeo Divekar & Anr.V.254(1) of the Code..). presentation of the cheque for payment.) 177 (JS) : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.Muthukaruppan Vs G..It is not correct to hold that complainant is doing money lending business in his individual capacity and requires a money lending licence . 1881.). 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1078 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 752 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 606 : 2006(2) ALJ 266 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR 210 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR BOM HCR 361 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 4 (SOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 515 : 2006(41) ALL IND CAS 166 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.). (Sunil Vassudev Pednekar Vs Bicholim Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.P. (T. is to be recovered only as if it were a fine. .Dishonour of cheque . issuance of statutory notice etc. 138-.Appellate Court can pass appropriate interim orders of suspension with any conditions or terms as may warrant in circumstances in respect of compensation awarded under sub-section (3) of S.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI. 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 859 (A.Granted under sub-section (3) of S. . & Anr.Prior to issuance of cheque accused executed an affidavit/undertaking admitting the loan amount and confirming the outstanding balance .Cheque given in payment of such debt if dishonoured then accused is liable to be punished u/s 138 of the Act.Separate order for suspension of sentence is not required in case order appealed against is suspended.Chandrasekaran Vs R.. (M/s.Demand of cheque amount through paper publication .) 989 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 326 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI. 138-. (Gulam Haidar Ali Khan Vs Managing Partner.). 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 946 (BOMBAY) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 56 : 2006 CRI LJ 3111 : AIR 2006 BOM 1096 (NOC) : 2006(6) AKAR 824 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR JHAR HCR 729 (NOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 673 : 2006(3) ALL MR 673 : 2006(6) BOM CR 874 : 2006(7) MAH LJ 11 #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.In case payment not made as agreed and as per schedule then complainant to get revive the complaint.Atul Wasudeo Divekar & Anr. (Maheshwar Dattatraya Kale Vs Capt.Debt becomes legally enforceable debt . (M.Dishonour of cheque .Accused in turn filed criminal complaint for committing forgery by filing a higher amount in the cheque Held. S. 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1078 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 752 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 606 : 2006(2) ALJ 266 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR . (V. 1881.Nagarajan).145 of the Act permits filing of affidavit.).Dishonour of cheque .Cognizance can be taken relying on affidavit as provision of S. 1881. 138-..Complaint .) 353 #22: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 744 (P&H) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 937 (P&H) #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint .Provision of S.Time barred debt . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .In the instant case condition imposed to deposit 50% of cheque amount for suspending order directing payment of compensation .Cheque issued for discharge of time barred debt . 1881.25(3). 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 741 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 913 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 2055 : 2006(4) ALJ 860 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 491 (NOPC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 696 (NOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 571 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 408 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI. 138-.Ravi & Ors.) 282 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI. (Salvaji Prabhakar Rao Vs State of A. 1881.Complaint can be filed by the Court where forged cheque is presented. 138-.Proper.) : 2006(2) DCR 701 : 2006(6) ALJ 700 #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 of the Act not complied with Complaint quashed.Appeal .Chandrasekaran Vs R.Payment to be made in instalments .Conviction u/s 138 Negotiable Instrument Act Appeal .P.Kanekar Vs The Bardez-Taluka Co-op..During pendency of proceedings parties compromised .) 721 #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Suspension of sentence .Dishonour of cheque . Shirdi Sai Finance Corporation. 1872. Vs Elumalai Chettiar)..Show cause notice as to removal from service on account of judgment of conviction .. (Narendra V.Affidavit in support thereof .Conviction u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Appeal . 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 741 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 913 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 2055 : 2006(4) ALJ 860 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 491 (NOPC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 696 (NOC) : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 571 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 408 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI. & Anr. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 717 (A.Dishonour of cheque . the sentence flowing therefrom automatically gets suspended . & Ors.. separate complaint not maintainable . S.P. 138-.If judgment of conviction is not suspended accused has to forego his employment even while appeal preferred by him against the judgment of conviction is pending. (V.If the very order appealed against is suspended. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 745 (A.. 1881. 138-.Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal .Nagarajan). 1881. Housing Mortgage Society Ltd.) 236 (JS) : 2006(2) ALT(CRI. 145-.Notice . 138-.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 953 (A.Kota).) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 903 (A.Condition of depositing compensation amount can be imposed .) : 2006 CRI LJ 369 (NOC) : 2006(6) ALJ 702 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALD (CRI.When amount of compensation is heavy Court can direct deposit of a reasonable amount .).P.P.Complaint quashed in view of compromise .In exceptional cases it can be granted without requiring deposit of compensation amount .Sigma Diagnostics Ltd.698 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 341 : 2006(127) DLT 670 : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 698 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 353 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. 1881. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 703 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 362 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 1059 : 2006(3) ALJ 511 (NOC) : 2006 AKAR 347 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 426 (NOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 765 : 2006(3) ICC 171 #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Contract Act. Vs Gurjeet Singh Kohli). C.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 041 (A.Sivanandam Vs Sri Srinivasa Marketing Co.) 526 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 179 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI) 113 (JS) : 2006(1) ALT(CRI. 138-.If correction of cheque number is permitted it will not ipso facto prejudice the defence of accused .Complaint restored.If complainant is absent on a particular day and his presence on that day is quite unnecessary then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint is not a proper exercise of the power envisaged in the provision of S.Such defence can only be considered at the time of trial Proceedings on such count cannot be dropped.. 1881.C.) 534 : 2006(4) RCR(CRI.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 72 (S. 2006(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 413 (S.. & Ors.P..210 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR BOM HCR 361 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 4 (SOC) : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 515 : 2006(41) ALL IND CAS 166 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI.) : 2006 CRI LJ 226 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 490 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALD(CRI. 1881. Vs M/s Nijjer Agro Foods Ltd.256 Cr.Company .Order of acquittal set aside and complaint restored. (Balasaheb Vs Abdulla). 138-.).C.Not signatory of cheque . (Guracharan Singh & Anr. 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 958 (P&H) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 10 (P&H) #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . Vs M/s Allied Motors Ltd. 1881.C.In case complainant insists to continue proceedings against all or any of the accused persons then Magistrate while deciding the matter finally may pass observations or strictures for wrong implication of all or any of the accused and may also initiate proceedings u/ss 211 or 340 Cr.Complaint .C.Wrong implication of a person as accused . 1881.). (Ravi Chandran Vs Subramanian). 138-. 138-. & Anr.Complaint u/s 138 ..P.P.Dismissal in default at the stage of arguments .).Dishonour of cheque . 138-.) 678 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.No mention in order that accused was present on that day .Not a ground for stay of complaint u/s 138 of the Act.C.Amendment allowed. (State Farm Corpn. Vs M/s.Dishonour of cheque .) 159 : 2006(2) CRIMES 248 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 66 : 2006(2) ICC 693 : 2006(1) MAH LJ 700 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Proceedings against petitioner quashed. 1881.Non appearance of complainant .Confusion in number of cheque occurred due to rubber stamp overlapping on the cheque number .Amendment Correction of cheque number .Dismissal in default and acquittal of accused . 138-.Cheque also subject matter of arbitration proceedings . 138-. (Daljeet Singh Chandok Vs State & Anr..) 544 : 2006(4) BANK CAS 424 : 2006 BANK J 557 : 2006(2) BOM CR (CRI..Complaint . . 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 365 (BOMBAY) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque issued by mandate holder when bounces it is the account holder who is liable.) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110 (S.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 826 (S..Order dismissing the complaint in default not justified and the said order can be corrected in exercise of revisional jurisdiction . 1881. & Anr.). 1881. 2006(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 455 (S.P. (M/s.Dishonour of cheque .) 1653 #4: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Pardeep Khanna & Ors. (P. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 612 (A.Director .) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (S.Dropping of proceedings Drafts in lieu of cheques issued .Beard Sell Satec Ltd. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (MADRAS) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 263 (MADRAS) : AIR 2007 NOC 53 (MADRAS) : 2006(2) ALJ (EE) 291 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 759 : 2006(1) KERLT 611 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.'Mandate holder' is a person obeying the mandate of another and issuing cheque .) 29 : 2005(10) SCC 626 : 2005 SCC(CRI.).No specific averment in complaint that he is in-charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Company . of India Ltd.) 5487 : 2006(2) BANK CAS 575 : 2006(2) ICC 641 : 2006(2) RCR(CRI. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 783 (MADRAS) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 383 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 3170 : 2006(5) AIR BOM HCR 861 (NOC) : 2006(6) ALL MR 31 (JS) : 2006(2) CRIMES 320 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) : 2006 CRIL LJ 360 : 2006(2) ALL CRI LR 276 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI. 138-.) : AIR 2006 SC 679 : 2005 AIRSCW 6301 : 2006(1) AIRKARR 505 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 2530 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 415 : 2006(131) COMCAS 147 : 2006 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) SC 174 : 2006 CRILR(SC&MP) SC 174 : ILR(KANT) 2006 SC 579 : 2006(33) OCR 616.1 : 2006(1) ORISSALR 121 : 2006(2) RAJLW 1512 : 2005(5) SLT 609 : 2006 SCC (CRI) 609 : 2006 SCC(CRI) 609 .C.Complainant on its own or trial Court can give opportunity to drop any or all of the accused persons . (Monika Jindal & Ors..) 645 : 2006(4) ICC 414 #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 199 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 308 (DELHI) : 2006(1) REC CRI R 958 : 2006(1) AD (DELHI) 457 #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Jindal Pipes Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . Pleading Details as to how liability towards cheque arose need not to be pleaded . 138-. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (DELHI) . 138-. Vs State of A. (Basheer Vs T.Post dated cheque itself becomes payable .. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 222 (P&H) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 152 (P&H) #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).P. & Anr. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 117 (M.Revision dismissed. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 301 (MADRAS) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .E.Company . Vs Thirumagal Mills Ltd. (Basheer Vs T.Director of a company is liable if he was a Director of Company on the date of issuance of cheque and was incharge and responsible for running the affairs of company.Points urged are matters to be decided during trial .) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (M.C. 138-.C.Post dated cheque .Dishonour of cheque .It is not necessary that role of each accused should be explained specifically.Averment in complaint that Directors were incharge and responsible to the company for conduct of its business . 1881.Conviction .Ss.262 to 265 Cr. 1881. 138-.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 501 (A.Plea that complainant received all amounts due and acknowledged by issuance of receipt after a compromise .Recalling of process order ...) : 2006 CRI LJ 2685 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 250 : 2006(2) ALT(CRI..).Pleading and proof is required that cheque was issued towards discharge of existing liability and it was presented for encashment and dishonoured for want of funds and he has complied with all statutory formalities provided under the Act. 1881. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Bank draft sent after filing of complaint .Dishonour of cheque .Accused in jail for one month and ten days . 1881. will be applicable for summary trial which cannot be converted in warrant trial in view of Ss.).Payment not made as promised .Given as security .Dishonour of cheque .4 & 5 of Cr.). (Joginder Singh Sidhu & Anr.Nirmal Jain). 138-.Payment and receipt is to be proved by adducing evidence in support thereof. no separate opportunity of hearing on the question of sentence is required to be given to the accused.P.Liability to pay . 1881.P..P.Director . (Madan Aggarwal Vs State & Anr. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (P&H) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 289 (P&H) #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Blue Blends (India) Ltd.C.Radhakrishnan).) 219 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 229 : 2006(4) ICC 305 : 2006(1) JAB LJ 440 : 2006(1) MPLJ 194 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .Dishonour of cheque ..P. 143-..Sentence .Can only be decided at the time of trial . (Kulwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.Dishonour of cheque . 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 777 (A. Vs Virat Verma). (M/s.P..Quantum . 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (DELHI) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1050 (P&H) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 180 (P&H) #14: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. Ltd.Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . & Anr.N.Execution of cheque admitted .Summary procedure of trial is to be followed .) 211 : 2006(4) ICC 465 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.Concurrent finding . 1881. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 120 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 21 (KERALA) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. Limited). & Anr. (Steel Tubes of India Vs Steel Authority of India). Vs P. 1881. 1881.Ravikanth Industries & Anr. (Constellation Enterprises Pvt..N. Vs P. 138-. 138-. 138-. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 120 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 21 (KERALA) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Director . 1881.) : 2006 CRI LJ 1988 : 2006(4) ALJ 679 (NOC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 602 (NOC) : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 573 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI. Ltd..Fine amount deposited .Radhakrishnan). (Constellation Enterprises Pvt. Limited).Dishonour of cheque .) 306 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.E.In summons case. 138.C.P. (Ajay Bansal Vs Smt.Resignation .Local standi of complainant .Complaint cannot be quashed ..Jail sentence suspended during pendency of revision.Presumption u/ss 118 and 139 of the Act is available that cheque was issued towards repayment of loan.#8: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured Accused liable to prosecution. 138-. rep. 1881..). & Anr. 1881.It is not essential to prosecute the firm/company also before the person in charge is sought to be prosecuted.Holder in due course . 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (A.Dishonour of cheque Prosecution of Managing partner .) #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured .C.Thomas & Anr.G.`Alteration in date and drawer's signature differ' Cheque dishonoured .Nirmal Jain). 138-.E.Specific averment as to `responsible for conduct of affairs of firm' . (M. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI) #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .Compensation .Accused is entitled to proceed against the complainant in accordance with law. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (DELHI) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Parties having good relations .P.Hardly any gap between the two contracts .To suspend sentence with or without sureties is the discretion of the appellate court .) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.First contract successfully completed . should be reasonable and shall commensurate with or proportionate with the sentence imposed.. 1881. (Smt.Conditions. 138-.Firm . Limited).C.. 138-. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (A. Vs P. 138-.#19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.G. rep.Second contract entered into between the parties .Normally double the amount of cheque is awarded .). 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 514 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 723 (KARNATAKA) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Masthan Reddy & Anr. 1881.Brothers Automobiles Ltd.). 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 949 (KERALA) : 2006 CRI LJ 1906 : 2006(4) ALJ(NOC) 682 : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 328 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 165 JS : 2006(4) BANKCAS 147 : ILR (KER) 2006(1) KER 723 : 2006(1) KERLJ 473 : 2006(1) KERLT 570 : 2006(2) RECCRIR 534 #2: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696 (A. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Court u/s 357(3) Cr.Cheque dishonoured . 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 431 (KERALA) #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. by its General Manager Vs B.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696 (A.Complaint not maintainable..Complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold.Usha Suresh Vs R.Accused can show that alteration in date or signatures are made not because of insufficiency or paucity of funds .P. 138.Radhakrishnan Vs A.Vehicle found defective against purchase of which cheque was issued ..Appeal against .Complaint filed by a person not authorised by company to present complaint against accused .Masthan Reddy & Anr. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .P.Cheque dishonoured .. 141-.. 1881.Conviction . by its General Manager Vs B. 1881.Firm .Mohammed Vs State of Kerala)..Held.Loan taken from `A' Cheque issued in favour of wife of `A' .C.Prosecution of company and directors .Notice to company . 138-.Thomas & Anr.).Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal .Radhakrishnan Vs A. (M.It is not required that each and every Director of company should be served with notice. 138. it is plausible and believable on the face of it that the accused could tell the complainant to treat the earlier unused cheque as security for the second contract .. can award unlimited amount of compensation. Ltd.If accused shows that in his account there were sufficient funds to clear the amount of cheque at the time of presentation of cheques for encashment at the drawer's bank and that the cheques were returned for the valid cause.P. 138-.Post dated cheque .Brothers Automobiles Ltd.Not required when cheque is signed as Managing Partner of the firm.Dishonour of cheque . (P.V.Shashidaran). (Ajay Bansal Vs Smt. 1881.Managing partner issued cheque to discharge liability of firm . (N.P. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 431 (KERALA) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Madan Aggarwal Vs State & Anr.. (Constellation Enterprises Pvt.Used for second contract whereas given for first contract . then the offence u/s 138 of NI Act would not be made out .P.Wife of `A' is entitled to prosecute accused.Managing Partner . 138-. 141-.Complaint cannot be quashed on this .Company .).It is altogether difference cause of action . if imposed. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (P&H) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 289 (P&H) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Accused is liable . (N.Company . Dishonour of cheque .Secretary is liable u/s 138 of the Act even if he ceases to be its Secretary.Notice . Rural & Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. 139-.). 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 673 (KARNATAKA) : 2006 CRI LJ 1853 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 565 : 2006(2) AIRKARR 697 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 526 NOC : 2006(55) ALLCRIC 37 SOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 181 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 942 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 108 JS : 2006(4) BANKCAS 575 : 2006 BANKJ 528 : 2006(134) COMCAS 314 : 2006(2) CURCRIR 573 : ILR (KANT) 2006 KAR 1377 : 2006(2) KANTLJ 389 : 2006(3) RECCRIR 94 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. & Anr.If amount recovered is insufficient to meet both. 151-.For an offence u/s 138 of the Act complainant is required to prove the facts constituting the cause of action therefor .) : 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 194 (S. Ltd. 138-. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 749 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1092 (BOMBAY) . (Abdul Rehman M.Territorial jurisdiction .) : 2004(13) SCC 498 #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Cheque given as collateral security .Offence u/s 138 is made out only when cheque is returned due to insufficient funds and amount exceeds the arrangement.) : AIR 2006 SC 1288 : 2006 AIR SCW 1137 : 2006(2) ALLCJ 1001 : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 163 : 2006(4) ALLINDCAS 265 : 2006(2) ALLMR 140 : 2006(2) ALLWC 1749 : 2006(1) ANDHLD 653 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 632 : 2006(2) BANKCAS 515 : 2006 BANKJ 1 : 2006(3) BOMCR 98 : 2006(2) CTC 57 : 2006(130) COMCS 390 : 2006(4) COMLJ 419 SC : 2006(72) COR LA 55 : 2006 CRLLR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 484 : 2006 CRLLR (SC&MP) SC 484 : 2006(2) CURCC 71 : 2006(1) CUR CRIR 178 : 2006(2) EAST CRIC 162 : 2006(2) ICC 708 : ILR (KANT #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Musaraf Hossain Khan Vs Bhagheeratha Engg.Dishonour of cheque ..Cheque dishonoured for the reason that it had no account number and it was without 'proprietary stamp' . 1881. was in charge of..Held.Fine and compensation Recovery of compensation gets precedence over recovery of fine .Letter a communication only or a notice .C. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 615 (KARNATAKA) #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. letter qualifies itself as a notice.C. 138.ground.No offence is made out . (Krishna Exports Vs Raju Das).C. Vs M/s.) : 2006 CRILJ 1683 (S. 141-. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289 #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Agreement entered into within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court .Dishonour of cheque .C.Project for which the supply of stone chips and transportation was to be carried out was also within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court Payments were obviously required to be made within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court where either the contract had been entered into or where payment was to be made . 138.Dishonour of cheque Offence committed by a registered society .If such a cheque is deposited and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability. 138-.).). 1881. & Ors. (Y.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1076 (S. (Goa Handicrafts.). and was responsible to the society for the conduct of the business of the society as well as the society shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished.Complaint filed in a Court within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court and Writ petition thereagainst filed in High Court of Kerala .Every person who at the time when the offence was committed.Held.Mulgand Vs Mohammad Hashan Mulgand & Anr.C. 138. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1009 (BOMBAY) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.Registered society . amount recovered must first be applied in payment of compensation and action be taken to recover balance amount . (Dinesh Harakchand Sankla Vs M/s Kurlon Ltd.) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S.C.Cheque issued by Secretary for and on behalf of society .Samudra Ropes Pvt. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured . 142-.Registered society .Make the payment or face legal action . Ltd.. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 740 (S. 1881. 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 107 (S. 1881..Cheque was never meant to be deposited .Venkatesh).).Recovery of compensation by attachment and sale of property of accused does not cease merely because the accused has undergone the whole of the imprisonment in default of payment of fine. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.Vishnu Vs S. 138.. 1881. Kerala High Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction.)..Dishonour of cheque ..Dishonour of cheque . 1881. . 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 828 (ALLAHABAD) : 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 155 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005 CRI LJ 3681 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 942 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 289 : 2005(4) .P.P.Kutamba Rao & Anr.Chandrashekar Rao Vs V.P. (M. (M.Chandrashekar Rao Vs V.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1082 (A. 138-.).P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1082 (A.P..) : 2006 CRI LJ 1399 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 617 : 2006(4) AKAR(NOC) 491 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 500 NOC : 2006(1) ALD(CRL) 110 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 382 : 2006(3)ALLMR 7 JS : 2006(1) ANDHLT(CRI) 309 AP : 2006(2) RECCRIR 439 #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. it is not open to Criminal Court to take different view.Second notice a valid notice demanding payment .Not a valid notice for the purpose of putting into motion the process of law under the Negotiable Instruments Act..Dishonour of cheque .Does not make the entire notice invalid. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 180 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 232 (DELHI) : 2005 CRI LJ 2239 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 450 : 2005(32) ALL IND CAS 361 : 2005 BANK J 344 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 455 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 124 : 2005(118) DLT 47 : 2005(3) ICC 760 : 2005(2) PLR 8(2) : 2005(4) RCR(CIV.).. 1881. 1881. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (ALLAHABAD) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1100 (ALLAHABAD) #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Rajesh Jain Vs M/s DCM Shriram Leasing & Finance Ltd.Chandrashekar Rao Vs V. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 773 (A. 138-.Amount of each cheque mentioned specifically and separately . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 141 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 111 (DELHI) #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.211 IPC or S.Magistrate may also initiate proceedings under S.#11: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Cheque must be presented within six months to the bank of drawer and not to the bank of drawee .340 Cr. 138-. 138-. 1881.One notice . (Raghuvir Goswami Vs Nirmal Thakur).Dishonour of cheque . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 141 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 111 (DELHI) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.No illegality.Five cheques . 138-.First notice not being a notice u/s 138 of NI Act cannot be used to count limitation .) : 2006 CRI LJ 1399 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 617 : 2006(4) AKAR(NOC) 491 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 500 NOC : 2006(1) ALD(CRL) 110 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 382 : 2006(3)ALLMR 7 JS : 2006(1) ANDHLT(CRI) 309 AP : 2006(2) RECCRIR 439 #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ganga Ram Vs State of U.). 138-. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 773 (A.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1082 (A.P. 1881.C. & Anr. (Raghuvir Goswami Vs Nirmal Thakur). 1881. (Pradeep Kumar Vidyarthi Vs State of U. 1881.Not in conformity with the requirement of S.One complaint can be filed though there was one demand notice .Kutamba Rao & Anr..Held.Notice ..Dishonour of cheque .Amount of each cheque mentioned specifically and separately .Possession of assets other than fixed assets was not taken over by State Financial Corporation and company was not prevented from disposing of its other assets for payment of debts.).Notice in respect of one cheque not valid .Company .) : 2006 CRI LJ 1399 : 2006(3) ALJ(NOC) 617 : 2006(4) AKAR(NOC) 491 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 500 NOC : 2006(1) ALD(CRL) 110 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 382 : 2006(3)ALLMR 7 JS : 2006(1) ANDHLT(CRI) 309 AP : 2006(2) RECCRIR 439 #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 433 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138-.Limitation to file complaint will begin from second notice.If cheque is not presented before 6 months to the bank of drawer then it would absolve him of criminal liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.P. (Madan Aggarwal Vs State & Anr.Two notices issued .138 of the Act .Kutamba Rao & Anr.Notice . 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI) #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .).In the instant case one complaint filed in respect of four cheques ..P.Complainant can voluntarily drop any or all of the accused persons .Trial Court should wait and allow the complainant to establish its case or take cognizance after expiry of stipulated period.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Finding of civil court that cheques were issued towards legally enforceable debt and liability .Dishonour of cheque ..For wrong implication Magistrate may pass observations or strictures while finally deciding the matter . (M.).Pre-mature complaint Complaint not to be dismissed as premature . 1881. 1881. 138-.).Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 773 (A.Complaint against Company not to be quashed on the ground that possession of fixed assets of company had been taken over by State Financial Corporation .Five cheques One notice .P. Firm . Vs M/s Pavan Commercial Corporation & Anr. Vs Dhiraj Rawal & Anr.) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Directors of Company cannot be prosecuted in absence of their name appearing in the array of accused in the complaint.482 Cr.P.Incorrect cheque number and date of presentation ...Dishonour of cheque ..) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 428 (A. (Rohit Parushram & Ors. 138-.). 141-. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala). that notice is valid.There is no mandate of the provision that notice must be sent only by registered post .BANK CAS 236 : 2006(1) ICC 541 #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (DELHI) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141.Criminal liability is not confined to the signatory of the cheque alone but extends to non signatories also provided other conditions in that regard are satisfied.Firm not made an accused .. 1881. & Anr. 138-.High Court ordered that sentence in both cases shall run concurrently.Notice sent as per certificate of posting It is a valid notice .).Notice is not vitiated .Mulgand Vs Mohammad Hashan Mulgand & Anr. 1881. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) . Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. 138-. 138-.In the instant case name of bank and cheque amount mentioned in notice found to be correct. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881.P. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Notice . then it is not 'a complaint of facts which constitute the offence'.145.Evidence of prosecution as well as evidence of accused and defence witnesses can be taken on affidavit .On the date of issuance of cheque there was nothing due towards the drawer of cheque .Cheque issued was not in discharge of legally enforceable debt .Notice .Dishonour of cheque .138 Proviso (2) is that notice should be in writing and there should be demand of cheque amount .).P. (M/s New Tech Pesticides Ltd..In case evidence is taken on affidavit then after an application is made by other party under sub-section (2) of S.). (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala). 1881. (Rajesh Bagga Vs State).P.C.The requirement of the provision of S. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 159 (A.Ramesh Vs Vankadara Sunil Kumar).Cheque dishonoured issued by company .).Notice sent on correct address would be deemed to have been received by addressee..Accused not liable as cheque was issued in advance when there was no legally enforceable debt. 138. 141-.Affidavits . (Abdul Rehman M.) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Not of much consequence as liability of proprietary concern and proprietor is joint and several.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 162 (A. 1881. 1881. it is not necessary to again record examination-in-chief of the witness whose affidavit of examination-in-chief is already filed .Cognizance of offence taken and summons issued . (Abdul Gafoor Vs Abdulla & Anr. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 353 (A.Dishonour of cheque .Cheque issued by proprietor of firm . 138. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala). 1881.. (M/s Indo International Ltd.P. 1881. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (A.P. held. 1881.Conviction u/s 138 NI Act in two complaints filed by same complainant ..P.. 142-.Magistrate thereafter has no power to recall the summons and drop the proceedings Remedy is to invoke S.Where the facts necessary for proceeding against an accused are not averred. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (BOMBAY) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 749 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1092 (BOMBAY) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Goods purchased on credit .On filing of an application u/s 145(2) witness must be made available for cross examination by the rival party. hence. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . 145(2).Cheques issued in advance . (M.. 138-.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 207 (A.Firm . 138-. P.P. 138-.P. (Shankarrao Vs Pandurang & Anr.)..Dishonour of cheque .) : 2005 CRI LJ 4492 : 2006(1) ALJ 166 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 233 (NOC) : 2005(2) SLD(CRI..) 537 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 579 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI. High Court of A.P.In the instant case in view of peculiar facts of the case.) 271 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Since it was not contention of accused that charge was groundless.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4492 : 2006(1) ALJ 166 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 233 (NOC) : 2005(2) SLD(CRI. 147-.Accused not stating that notice was sent to a wrong address or that he has not managed to return the notice or that he was out of station during that period .Complaint not filed Cheque again presented and again dishonoured .Notice .. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 353 (A..P.). 1881. Vs Public Prosecutor.P. & Anr. when it was sent and when it was received are questions of fact which can only be decided after taking evidence. 138-. (Polisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu & Ors. (Kerala State Road Transport Corpn.Dishonour of cheque . Magistrate was perfectly justified in proceeding with trial .Narmada Enterprises Vs State of A.) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 428 (A.) 0736 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 669 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI.P.P.. 1881.).Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that cheque was not issued towards discharge of a liability . 138-.Charge framed .Accused convicted .) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 779 (A. (Polisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu & Ors. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (A.Question whether fax message was sent or not. 138-.) 271 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.#5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sent by fax .) 378 : 2006(1) ICC 776 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 396 (A.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4297 : 2006(1) ALJ 72 : 2006(1) AIR KANR HCR (NOC) 009 : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 244 (NOC) : 2005(2) ALD(CRI. 138-.) 378 : 2006(1) ICC 776 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (A.) 537 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 579 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI. 1881. 1881. Hyderabad).Abdul Latheef).Accused can be acquitted if parties arrive at settlement . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (BOMBAY) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 602 (BOMBAY) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 537 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 579 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI.Received back with postal endorsement that addressee was not available . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 188 (A.P.Ltd.Acquittal cannot be recoded on this ground . High Court of A.P.) #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0736 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 669 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI.This is an offence in commercial practice.Burden is on complainant to prove that accused managed to get incorrect postal endorsement made. 138-.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4297 : 2006(1) ALJ 72 : 2006(1) AIR KANR HCR (NOC) 009 : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 244 (NOC) : 2005(2) ALD(CRI.Complaint u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act Complaint is to be tried like summons case .Dishonour of cheque .).P.27 of General Clauses Act. Vs Public Prosecutor..Managing partner or partner is competent to file complaint. Court itself recording settlement and acquitted the accused. 138. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 396 (A. it is due service under S.Simply because summons case was converted into warrant case that per se would not result into any illegality. High Court of A. & Anr.Narmada Enterprises Vs State of A..Held. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (A.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4297 : 2006(1) ALJ 72 : 2006(1) AIR KANR HCR (NOC) 009 : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 244 (NOC) : 2005(2) ALD(CRI.Petition seeking discharge is not maintainable.Compounding of offence . Vs Public Prosecutor. Hyderabad).Dishonour of cheque .Summons case converted into warrant case .P..P.Accused seeking quashing of proceedings . (Rohit Parushram & Ors.Accused making payment of cheque .Partnership firm . Vs S. 1881.P. Hyderabad).Notice issued .Evidence of two witnesses recorded after framing of charge . 1881.P.Offence u/s 138 of the Act is not involving moral turpitude . Vs Dhiraj Rawal & Anr.Complaint filed . (M/s.). 138-. 1881.P. 1881. 1881...Sent as per registered post at a correct address .Heavy Machinery & Engg.) 378 : 2006(1) ICC 776 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT .Notice .Notice received back with postal endorsement `Not available' ..This fact is to be decided in course of trial. (Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s A.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 25 (A.Notice . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 390 (KERALA) (DB) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 771 (KERALA) (DB) : 2005(3) KLT 955 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s. (Polisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu & Ors..) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 779 (A.Complaint whether beyond limitation? . which is unlawful or not legally enforceable. it is presumed that U.Must be . 1881. appellate court as well as the revisional court . (Mathew George Vs Jacob). 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 467 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 572 (KARNATAKA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4184 : 2006(1) ALJ 76 (NOC) : 2005 AIR KANT HCR 2440 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 622 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 613 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 263 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 535 : 2006 BANK J 284 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 560 : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 489 : 2005(4) ICC 782(2) : 2005 ILR(KANT.Company .. Chairman..P.. 138-.Earlier notice not under S. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 530 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (KERALA) : 2006(1) LRC 408 (KER.C. (P. 138.K. 138-. 1881. Vs M/s. would not constitute an offence u/s 138 of the Act.It is an interim order . 138-.It can be varied or recalled if accused is able to show that no offence is made out from the complaint. 141-..Dishonour of cheque .) : 2005 CRI LJ 4095 : 2006(1) ALJ 77 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) ABR 83 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 390 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 273 : 2006(1) ICC 669 : 2005(3) KLJ 29 : 2005(4) RCR(CIV) 641 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Legally enforceable debt or other liability Cheque issued for a consideration which is unlawful .High Court can exercise the power available u/s 427 Cr.Complaint . 1881.Ltd. (Everest Advertising Pvt. 1881. 'Hence..No offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 530 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (KERALA) : 2006(1) LRC 408 (KER. (Abdul Gafoor Vs Abdulla & Anr.P. 138-.) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. by invoking jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.Negotiable Instruments Act.).C.Sent as per registered post and UCP (Under Certificate of posting) . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. & Anr.Prosecution of Company.Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Anr.Gypsum Structural India Pvt.Dishonour of cheque . (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd. Vs State).Liability arising is not a legally enforceable debt or other liability . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.) 4486 : 2005(4) KCCR 2761 : 2005(5) KANT LJ 473 #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.138 of the Act . Vice Chairman and other Directors of the Company complaint must show how they are responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business of the company and how they were actually involved in the conduct of the business of the company relating to the transaction in question or how and on what basis it can be said that it was with the active connivance of these accused that the offence was committed by the company .Complaint based on subsequent presentation of cheque and subsequent notice of demand cannot be said to be invalid.).). any debt or liability arising out of a contract or promise.Complaint . 138-.Ltd..) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A. 1881.Discretion can be exercised by trial Court.Held. 1881. 1881.Notice . (J. 138-.Notice . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 444 (DELHI) : 2005 CRI LJ 3406 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 689 : 2006(1) CIVLJ 890 #22: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Pleading in complaint viz.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4095 : 2006(1) ALJ 77 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 6 (NOC) : 2006(1) ABR 83 (NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 390 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 273 : 2006(1) ICC 669 : 2005(3) KLJ 29 : 2005(4) RCR(CIV) 641 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Issued twice . it is sufficient to hold that complainant has pleaded as to service of notice on the accused .Averment 'has been received by the accused' shall be construed as 'service of notice'. has been received by the accused' .Radha Krishnan Vs Vijayan Nambiar).For prosecution of Chairman.Summoning order .). 1881.P. Vice Chairman and other Directors of the company .Identity of signatory of a cheque is not a question to be considered by trial Court.UCP did not return .P.Dishonour of cheque issued by Company .).Omnibus allegation that Chairman and Directors of the company were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and all of them connived in the offence is not sufficient for their prosecution.An agreement opposed to law or forbidden by law is not enforceable .Ltd.Notice sent as per registered post returned unserved . 138. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1049 (KERALA) #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Daniel Vs State of Kerala & Anr.Held. 141-..Legally enforceable debt or other liability Cheque issued for compounding a non compoundable offence .. (J.Dishonour of cheque .Concurrent running of sentence . (M/s Laltech Engineering Projects Pvt. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 531 (DELHI) : 2005(124) DLT 353 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 138-. complaint is within time.C.) 467 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 262 : 2006(1) KLJ 206 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI.).Held.. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.Goods supplied to accused .Blank cheque theory .2000 and complaint filed on 21.. 138.In the instant case notice received on 6. 1881. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 662 (A. the company is liable for prosecution .Company . (Abhinav Chaturvedi Vs M/s Mangalik Chemicals).It is thus established that cheques were issued towards legally enforceable debt .P.Dishonour of self drawn cheque does not amount to penal offence u/s 138 of the Act. 1881.P.Received back with postal endorsement `Receiver could not be found despite several visits' .Raveendran & Anr.Non signing of complaint by complainant is a curable defect and complainant can later on sign the complaint. (Polisetty Seetharamanjaneyulu & Ors. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C..) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.Jiten Barkakoti Vs Subrata Patangia & Anr.Samsen Papli Vs Sridevi). 138.P. (Valishetty Manohar (Complainant) Vs Public Prosecutor..Contention that blank cheques were issued in good faith not tenable.K. .All the transactions shown in the account books maintained by complainant . 1881. complainant is neither a payee nor a holder in due course . Taxtex Limited. 1881.) : 2005 CRI LJ 4297 : 2006(1) ALJ 72 : 2006(1) AIR KANR HCR (NOC) 009 : 2006(1) AIR JHAR HCR 244 (NOC) : 2005(2) ALD(CRI.Held.C.Sent as per registered post at correct address .) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.). 1881.138(b) of the Act as it is only at the trial that complainant can prove that accused managed to get an incorrect postal endorsement. (Dr.Dishonour of cheque .. rep.6. 138-.) 378 : 2006(1) ICC 776 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.P. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A. Hyderabad). 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1017 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4756 : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 222 (NOC) : 2006(10 ABR 193 (NOC) : 2006(10 ALL CRI LR 741 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.. High Court of A.) 556 .. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (GAUHATI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 744 (GAUHATI) : 2005 CRI LJ 3598 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 729 : 2006(37) ALL IND CAS 636 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 859 : 2006(1) EAST CRI C 158 : 2005(2) GAU LT 558 : 2006(1) KLT 674 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). Vs T. (S.P.Company .Dishonour of cheque . complaint can be dismissed u/s 204 Cr.Cheque drawn in favour of `Self' . 138-. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.Suresh Kumar Vs V. 138-. High Court of A.P. Vs Public Prosecutor.) 537 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 579 : 2005(3) ALT(CRI.P.P. 1881..Complainant failed to take steps u/ss 82 & 83 Cr.Dishonour of cheque .Accused cannot be discharged on the ground that there is no valid notice as contemplated by provision of S. 141-.). 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (MADRAS) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 956 (MADRAS) : 2006 CRI LJ 1991 : 2006(2) ALJ(NOC) 230 : 2006(54) ALLCRIC 54 SOC : 2006(2) ALLCRILR 139 : 2006(38) ALLINDCAS 578 : 2006 ALLMR(CRI) 223 JS : 2006(3) B ANKCLR 514 : 2006(4) BANKCAS 590 : 2006 BANKJ 60 : 2005(5) CTC 765 : 2006(1) CRIMES 568 : 2006(2) ICC 441 : 2006 MADLJ (CRI) 118 : 2006(1) RECCRIR 514 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Liable for prosecution despite non prosecution of the Director or Directors responsible for the management of the affairs of the company or incharge of its affairs. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (A.Limitation . 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (MADRAS) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 532 (MADRAS) #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.P.Accused cannot be acquitted . 1881. 138-.However.5.Notice contemplated to be given is one that is given after the dishonour of the cheque and not before that. Hyderabad & Anr.When company is convicted.Notice ..P. 138-.Notice .). by its Partner & Anr.) #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 867 (A. (Surana Traders.Cheque not endorsed in favour of complainant . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 653 (ALLAHABAD) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 926 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005 CRI LJ 4561 : 2005 ALL LJ 3284 : 2006(2) AIR KAR HCR 224 (NOC) : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 418 : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 718 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 3374 : 2006(1) BAN CAS 112 #3: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Starts to run from the day immediately following the day on which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice expires . 1881..2000 .T.If certain crimes are committed by its officials. 141-. (V. the liability can be only in terms of fine as the company is responsible for the acts of commissions and omissions of the persons working for it.signed by the complainant .). (V.).There is no legal defect in the service of notice. (M/s Woods & Ors.Transit bail allowed. (Mahesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan).) 467 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 262 : 2006(1) KLJ 206 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI.Raveendran & Anr.) 467 : 2005(3) RAJ CRI C 1470 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Received back with postal endorsement 'Addressee not available' .Cheque dishonoured . 000/.) 556 #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. on his own behalf.Payment stopped on account of absence of any pre-existing debt or liability .Petitioner has already undergone the sentence .) 412 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 210 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI. unless it is established that the dishonoured cheque is drawn by the society on an account maintained by the society itself.).Society .Dishonour of cheque . 141-. 138-. Society or its Secretary not liable for offence u/s 138 of the Act on dishonour of such a cheque.Held. 138.#6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 500 : 2006(1) RCR(CRIMINAL) 500 : 2006(1) JCC (NI) 62 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sent at correct address . (Jitesh Kumawat Vs Naresh & Anr..)..Dishonour of cheque .B.It means addressee intentionally avoided to accept the registered cover .K.).Chairman .Absence of complainant .. informed' . 138-.Non bailable warrants issued as accused failed to appear inspite of service of summons . 138-.Case pending in Court within jurisdiction of another High Court . and not on behalf of the society .Request for reducing the amount of compensation not opposed by complainant .) AP 481 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 576 : 2005(125) COM CAS 623 : 2005(3) ICC 442 : 2005(2) RCR(CRI.. 1881. 1881.to Rs.Cheque drawn from personal account of President of society . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1017 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4756 : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 222 (NOC) : 2006(10 ABR 193 (NOC) : 2006(10 ALL CRI LR 741 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 360 (A. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 731 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 947 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4572 : 2006(1) ALJ 164 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 225(NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 719 : 2006(1) CUR CRI R 187 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.`Stop payment' .President of society issued cheque.Received back with postal endorsement 'Not found.Amount of compensation reduced from Rs.) 762 #14: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Reduction .) 500 : 2006(1) RCR(CRIMINAL) 500 : 2006(1) JCC (NI) 62 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint .Notice . (Dayawanti Vs Shubh Lata).. 138.Does not amount to service of notice unless it is proved that such endorsement was managed by the addressee.Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground and the question of fact has to be decided in defence. 138-.). 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 633 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 570 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005 CRI LJ 3419 : 2005(4) ALL CRI R 714 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 480 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 887 : 2005 CRI LR (RAJ.K. 141-.. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (RAJASTHAN) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Society or its Secretary cannot be proceeded against.P. 1881.Notice .Summoning order against Chairman quashed as Chairman of a Company under Companies Act is not responsible for day to day business of the company nor it can be inferred as a person consented or connived in commission of offence merely because he is Chairman of the Company. (H. mere absence of complainant by itself is not a ground to acquit the accused.President issued cheque from his personal account to discharge a debt or liability of society .Velayudhan & Ors.).Seetharamanjaneyulu & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Society . 1881. 138-. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 731 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 947 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4572 : 2006(1) ALJ 164 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 225(NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 719 : 2006(1) CUR CRI R 187 : 2005(4) ILR (KER. 1881..C.) 412 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 210 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 712 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 642 (DELHI) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Court within whose jurisdiction accused resides can grant transit bail .Company ..P.40.Suresh Kumar Vs V. 1881.) : 2005(1) ANDH LD (CRI) 473 : 2005 CRI LJ 2489 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 55 : 2005(1) ALT(CRI.Dishonour of cheque .Chaturvedi Vs State). 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 703 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1006 (DELHI) #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Pramod Vs C.50. 000/-.Compensation . 1881. 138-. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 24 (A.Dishonour of cheque .Velayudhan & Ors.Held..Sent as per registered post . (Pramod Vs C. 138-. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (P&H) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 826 (P&H) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 176 . Vs State & Anr. (Yadlapalli Satyan Vs K. Oral information received from bank is not sufficient Period of 30 days starts to run from the date of receipt of written communication from the bank.Contents of accusation read over to accused . 138-.Affidavits .P.Notice . it is service of notice .Form in which notice is to be issued is immaterial.. (Mahendra Kumar Vs Armstrong & Anr.Conviction upheld. (Srikant Somani & Ors. 1881.C. 1881. evidence of complainant can be given by him on affidavit .) 425 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 138 : 2005(127) COM CAS 452 : 2005(3) EAST CRI C 286 : 2005(3) ICC 531 #16: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.`Stop payment' ..K. 1881. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 741 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) #25: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Sharad Gupta & Anr.There is nothing wrong in common notice being jointly addressed to all the persons responsible for the offence.Sent as per registered post at correct address . 1881.Notice . 138-.Ajay Kumar & Anr.Brother of complainant allowed to pursue appeal.If the power of attorney holder has appeared as a witness. 138-. at the stage of taking cognizance. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (A.No form of notice is prescribed in the Act . 1881.No question of stopping the proceedings arises . 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 124 (DELHI) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (DELHI) #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881.Examination of attorney as witness in the capacity of complainant is not permissible . (Umesh Kanjibhai Raja Vs Nitin Rasiklal Parikh & Anr. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 124 (DELHI) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (DELHI) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (P.Received back `unclaimed' .).P.S. however. but for further proceeding.).Ltd.Common notice .Application for quashing of complaint rightly dismissed by Court below.Accused did not adduce any evidence to rebut presumption available u/s 114 Evidence Act . 1881..Notice . 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 167 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 549 (BOMBAY) #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice ..Complaint.Held. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . 138-..) 459 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 72 : 2005(1) ALT(CRI.P.Evidence of Postman that he gave intimation to addressee but inspite of intimation addressee did not receive the notice . 138-.).P.Limitation is 30 days from the date of receipt of information from the bank .Joint account .Non fulfilment of conditions of contract by complainant .) : 2005 CRI LJ 2383 : 2005(1) ALD(CRI. (Suresh Kumar Vs Rituraj Pipes & Plastic Pvt.) #17: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Offence is committed by the person who issues the cheque and not the person on whose behalf cheque is issued unless.Dishonour of cheque .). (Srikant Somani & Ors.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (M. 1881. 1881.). Vs Sharad Gupta & Anr.Thankamma Vs Sundaresan T. Vs Sharad Gupta & Anr.). (V.Power of attorney holder can appear as a witness in his own capacity . 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 75 (M.. 138-. 138-. examination of the complainant is a must.Dishonour of cheque .Vicarious liability is available only in respect of offence committed by a company. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 124 (DELHI) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (DELHI) #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Case fixed for evidence . on dishonour of cheque.P. (Srikant Somani & Ors. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 124 (DELHI) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (DELHI) #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..). 138-.Complaint .Person who draws the cheque is liable for the offence u/s 138 of the Act . 145.. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 124 (DELHI) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (DELHI) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Limitation . 138-.. 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 855 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (RAJASTHAN) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. the person on whose behalf the cheque is issued is a company or a partnership firm.#15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Death of complainant during pendency of appeal against acquittal .Power of attorney holder . Vs Sharad Gupta & Anr.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 530 (A. (Srikant Somani & Ors. 1881.In computing period of limitation the day on which cause of action arises has to be excluded. (Srikant Somani & Ors.Kishore Vs S..).For the purpose of issuing process. his testimony can be considered for the purposes of registration of the complaint/issuance of process u/s 204 Cr. Vs Sharad Gupta & Anr. 138-.). can be filed through power of attorney holder .. Business transaction taking place at a number of places . 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 75 (M.Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil case .and can be read in evidence in any enquiry. 138-. (2) Presentation of the cheque to the Bank. 1881. power of Attorney holder. (Sita Ram Singhania & Anr. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.). 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282 (GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117 #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 1881. and (5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice. (Sita Ram Singhania & Anr.Amount paid for securing a job .). 1881.).It is sufficient service of notice .`Refusal' . 1881.Court on application of prosecution or accused. complaint is maintainable. 139.. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.) #1: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Power of attorney holder . 138-.Held..15 days time to make payment starts from the date of endorsement of `Refusal' . 1881. punishable u/s 138 of N.Company . (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawer bank. (Francis Mathew Vs State of Kerala).Dishonour of cheque ..Can file complaint on account of dishonour of cheque in the name of the principal. & Anr.Pendency of proceedings for winding up does not affect prosecution.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (M. 138-.Legally enforceable debt . (Sita Ram Singhania & Anr.Cheque issued towards the amount obtained . 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282 (GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.I. summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein. 138-. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.Held..) 3075 #5: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 226 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 61 (KERALA) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.P. 138-. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.). (Sita Ram Singhania & Anr.).Complaint filed in Gujarat state .Civil case not withdrawn .Winding up petition pending ..). 138. 1881.Components of the offence of dishonour of cheque. alone has to be the witness in place of the complainant apart from other witnesses if involved in the transaction. (Kushal Pal Singh Vs State of U. in addition to his capacity to file complaint.. 1881.Cheque presented at Delhi and dishonoured .All transactions in relation to dishonour of cheque undertaken by power of attorney holder in total exclusion of the payee or holder in due course In such an eventuality. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282 (GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117 #7: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.I.Sick company . amount covered by cheque is legally enforceable and not opposed to public policy unlike a bribe paid. (Mahendra Kumar Vs Armstrong & Anr.. no decision was taken by Board for winding up the company . 138-. trial or other proceeding . 43-. 1881. 138.Post dated cheque issued at Delhi .Jurisdiction .Notice issued by complainant company and received by accused at Delhi .) 3075 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount.Held.).. when cheque is issued for .Held. Act was filed.Goods supplied at Delhi . 1881. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 282 (GUJARAT) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (GUJARAT) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 117 #8: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complainant company located in Gujarat but having bank account at Delhi also . 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 843 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005 CRI LJ 3035 : 2005 ALL LJ 1824 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 200 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 64 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R 1361 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 464 : 2005 BANK J 758 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 832 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 371 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Jurisdiction .If payment is not made within 15 days of endorsement of `Refusal' there remains one month's time for the payee to file the complaint..P.).Complainant can file complaint in any of the Courts where transactions took place . Act are: (1) Drawing of the cheque.Choice is of the complainant. when complaint u/s 138 of N. 142-.Notice .Failure to secure job . Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. C.) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 2797 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.Complaint .. (Kushal Pal Singh Vs State of U.Liability depends not upon holding an office in a company but satisfying the main requirement that he was incharge and responsible for conduct of business of company at the relevant time .C.`Refusal' . & Anr.A Director not incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the Company is not liable for the offence whereas a person not holding any office but incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time is liable for the offence. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 356 (P&H) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (P&H) #11: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 449 (S.Dishonour of cheque . Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt. (Anoop Bhakoo Vs Subhash Chander Gupta). (S.) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 392 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 843 (ALLAHABAD) : 2005 CRI LJ 3035 : 2005 ALL LJ 1824 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 200 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 64 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R 1361 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 464 : 2005 BANK J 758 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 832 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 371 #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.Another cheque given .Accused already deposited amount of fine .) : AIR 2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005 AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 17 : 2006(1) ALD(CRI. 138-.). 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KARNATAKA) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Notice .Birla 3M Ltd.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. (CREF Finance Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . Bangalore Vs M/s.). 1881..).) 719 : 2005(4) CTC 684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 : 2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES 256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT .) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S. 138-. withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.C. 1881.Both the complaints ordered to be clubbed and entrusted to one Court.Pharmaceuticals Ltd.P..) 562 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.S..Parties compromised during pendency of complaint . 1881.There is presumption that such endorsement was correctly made unless proved otherwise. Ltd.Second complaint filed . 1881. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala).Appeal against conviction Reduction in sentence .some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet another promise i.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 01 (S.Company .. (M/s.e.The very issuance of cheque presumes that it was issued for discharge of liability.Accused an old lady .Accused faced agony for 12 years . 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (P&H) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 826 (P&H) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 176 #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 1881.. 141-.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.Dishonour of cheque .Accused already undergone 10 days of imprisonment Sentence reduced from six months to already undergone.C. (Dayawanti Vs Shubh Lata).C.Complaint .Even collateral security becomes a debt or liability on the part of accused to perform his contract .C.That cheque also dishonoured .Cheque issued as a collateral security Dishonour of cheque .Cognizance Magistrate if proceeds to examine the complainant and such other evidence as the complainant may produce then it should be held to have taken cognizance of the offence and proceeded with the inquiry.). 138-.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. & Anr. 138-. punishable u/s 138 of the Act.) 2005(3) KER.M.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (S. 138.Menon Ventures. 138-.P.Proceedings cannot be quashed.). it does not prevent the complainant from lodging FIR with the police for an offence punishable u/s 420 IPC .Managing Director issued cheque on behalf of Company .638 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (S. 1881.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 01 (S. there is no bar to prosecute a person for an offence of cheating .) 2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 : 2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 : 2006(1) KANT.) 2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 : 2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 : 2006(1) KANT.Post dated cheque . LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4) MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4) PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI. cognizance against Managing Director is taken properly after considering the material placed before Magistrate. and proceeds further in the matter.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 01 (S. 1881.) 719 : 2005(4) CTC 684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 : 2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES 256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT 638 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT. (CREF Finance Ltd. Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt.Drawee filing FIR with police and offence u/s 420 IPC registered .).) 26 : 2005(7) SCC 467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 : 2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. merely because the ingredients of an offence u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted. Ltd. it must be held to have taken cognizance of the offence. Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt.C.Dishonour of Cheque .P..Complaint . Vs Shree Shanthi Homes Pvt. & Anr.) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 2797 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1) ALT(CRI. Ltd.Held. (N.Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.FIR u/s 420 IPC lodged .C.Complaint .Dishonour of cheque .Bank informed that there is no amount in the account of drawer .) 2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 : 2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 : 2006(1) KANT. & Anr. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 594 (KARNATAKA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1881.).) 26 : 2005(7) SCC 467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 : 2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 449 (S. 138-. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 449 (S. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 449 (S.Cognizance Once the Court on perusal of the complaint is satisfied that the complaint discloses the commission of an offence and there is no reason to reject the complaint at that stage. LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4) MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4) PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 2797 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.) 26 : 2005(7) SCC 467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 : 2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76 #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 594 (KARNATAKA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA) .Cognizance Cognizance of complaint is taken when Magistrate orders recording statement of complainant and any evidence which the complainant may produce .). he could not be prosecuted and that process is erroneously issued against him .Held. (CREF Finance Ltd. 1881..Issuance of process against Managing Director challenged on the ground that liability not being the personal liability of Managing Director. 138-. 138-.) 2005 SC 5578 : 2005(4) JLJR 33 : JT 2005(8) SC 87 : 2005(4) KCCR 2649 : 2005(5) KHCACJ 273 : 2006(1) KANT.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 01 (S. 138-.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005 AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 17 : 2006(1) ALD(CRI.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (S.Dishonour of cheque .Held. LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4) MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4) PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.. 1881. (CREF Finance Ltd.Bar u/s 142(a) is applicable only for the offence u/s 138 NI Act and not for an offence of cheating punishable u/s 420 IPC.C.).) 26 : 2005(7) SCC 467 : 2005(7) SCJ 399 : 2005(6) SRJ 451 : 2005(7) SCALE 53 : 2005(6) SUPREME 76 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .) 48 : 2005(53) ALL CRI C 803 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 361 : 2005(3) ALL CRI R 2797 : 2005(35) ALL IND CAS 136 : 2006(1) ALT(CRI.Dishonour of Cheque .) 719 : 2005(4) CTC 684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 : 2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES 256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT 638 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT.) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI.C.C.Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.C.Cheque .It is not necessary that the words 'Cognizance taken' should appear in the order.C.) 719 : 2005(4) CTC 684 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 449 : 2005(127) COM CAS 311 : 2005(69) COR LA 83 : 2005 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 73 : 2005(3) CRIMES 256 (SC) : 2005(3) CUR CRI C 224 : 2005(100) CUT LT 638 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 138 : ILR(KANT. (N. & Anr.No amount in account when cheque presented .) : AIR 2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005 AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 17 : 2006(1) ALD(CRI.) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI. LJ 118 : 2005(4) MPLJ 456 : 2005(4) MAH LJ 1186 : 2005(32) OCR 425 : 2005(4) PAT LJR 62 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (S.Post dated cheque .) SC 65 : 2005(2) BOM CR(CRI. Ltd.) : AIR 2005 SC 4284 : 2005 CRI LJ 4524 : 2005 AIR SCW 5162 : 2006(1) AIR KANT HCR 17 : 2006(1) ALD(CRI. ) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (S.By virtue of the office they hold.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.M.Company .) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Such person is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and is covered u/s 141 (2) of the Act.C.C.S. 141..) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S. Bangalore Vs M/s.). 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.Without this averment being made in a complaint.Complainant is entitled to file both private complaint for bouncing of cheque as well as civil suit for recovery of the amount due by the accused.C..C. 138-.Company .145 in the NI Act .C. 1881. 138-.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.C. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S. (S. 1881. they are persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and they are covered u/s 141 of the Act.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.A Director is liable only if he is incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time and there has to be an averment in the complaint to this effect .141 cannot be said to be satisfied.). Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.M.Signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured .Pharmaceuticals Ltd.Pharmaceuticals Ltd.Birla 3M Ltd..However.S.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S. 1881.C.C. 138-.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KARNATAKA) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. it is open to the discretion of the Judge to put questions to the . Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S. (S.#21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 141.Affidavit of complainant can be filed . 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.M.).Recording statement of complainant Stands substantially dispensed with by insertion of S. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.Director .C.C. 141.Managing Director and Joint Managing Director .) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.Company . 138-. 1881.Merely being a Director of a company is not sufficient to make him liable .) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.). (M/s. the requirements of S.. 145. 138-.C.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Menon Ventures.S.. Notice is perfectly legal .. 807 : 2005(1) KLJ 679 : 2005(2) KLT 45 : 2005(2) RCR(CRI.. Bangalore).Cannot be . 141-.7.1 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1321 : 2005(2) UJ (SC) 1067 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.1990 is to be excluded for counting period of one month .7.Part payment made after issuance of cheque Cheque dishonoured .Date 28.Compounding of offence . 1881..). (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.) 2005(1) KER.Held No . (Target Overseas Exports (P) Ltd.In case of a company notice is required to be served on the company who is the drawer of the cheque and not on the signatories/Directors of the company who are incharge and responsible officer of the company as they face indictment u/s 141 of the Company .. Vs Mac Charles India Limited. 138-..Cause of action accrues on 28. 1881.If for some reasons Company cannot be prosecuted then other persons cannot on that score escape from penal liability.1990 sent on 11.Company . 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 772 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 741 (KERALA) : 2006 CRI LJ 1742 : 2006(2) ALJ(NOC) 231 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 593 NOC : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 743 : 2006(37) ALLINDCS 439 : 2006(2) BANKCAS 103 : 2006 BANKJ 764 : 2006(132) COMCAS 399 : 2006(1) CRIMES 857 : 2006(1) CURCRIR 176 : ILR (KER) 2005(4) KER 379 : 2005(3) KERLJ 410 : 2005(4) KERLT 432 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1158 : 2006(1) RECCRIR 260 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.7.Joint petition of compromise filed by parties whereby parties settled their dispute and grievances . (Ramnarayan Vs Proprietor.1990 .A person facing indictment under section 141 of the Act is not entitled to notice. (Sailesh Shyam Parsekar Vs Baban alias Vishwanath S. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 789 (BOMBAY) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 729 (BOMBAY) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 513 (S.Complaint filed on 27. 138.Notice .) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (S. its directors and its officers who signed and issued cheques Summons and warrants against Company and its Directors not served . 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 86 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 490 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 1931 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 759 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 810 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 152 : 2005 BANK J 941 : 2005(127) COM CAS 264 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 435 : 2005(3) EAST CRI C 65 : ILR(KER.Parties permitted to compound the offence . 1881.C. (Xavierkutty Vs Sunnymon). Daulat Enterprises & Anr. 1881. 1881.Cheque dishonoured .1990 is to be excluded and the accused was required to make the payment upto 27.Dishonour of cheque .Is required to be served on the drawer and not on the person who has signed the cheque on behalf of the drawer .Conviction and sentence of appellant set aside in view of compromise and accused acquitted of the charge. 1881.7.) : 2005 AIRSCW 3358 : 2005(2) ALLCJ 1093 : 2005(53) ALLCRIC 306 : 2005(3) ALLCRILR 891 : 2005(4) ALLMR 847 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 702 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 702 : 2005(3) CURCRR 1 : 2005(3) ICC 811 : 2005(3) KCCR 1966 : 2005(2) ORISSA LR 430 : 2005(4) SCC 162 : 2005(5) SLT 198. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 587 (S.) 3075 #1: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Iqbal). (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels).Chandrasekhar & Anr.Even if it is taken that it was served on 12.Notice dated 9.Case split up Prosecution continued only against officers who signed cheques . 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802 #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2005 CRILJ 4878 (S.1990 . 138-.7.Complaint .1990 then date 12. 138.Limitation .1990 is well within time.Dishonour of cheque Complaint against Company.Prosecution of company is not sine qua non for prosecution of other persons ..7.Cheque issued to lawyer towards professional fee for conducting case .Notice of demand issued pointing out all the details of the liability and the balance amount claimed .If inspite of part payment made if the demand had been made of the entire amount of cheque then it would obviously be improper and impermissible.1990 .8.7.). 142-. 1881.C.) 773 : 2005(2) BANKMANN 42 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Liability is legally enforceable.C. (K. 138-.).. 138-.Godge & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 100 (KARNATAKA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 434 (KARNATAKA) : 2005 CRI LJ 1120 : 2005 AIR KANT HCR 298 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 149 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 867 : 2005(3) ALL MR 15 : 2005(3) BANK CLR 79 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 533 : 2005 BANK J 580 : 2005(2) CIV LJ 861 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 144 : 2005(2) KANT LJ 124 #7: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Question as to whether demand notice is illegal . 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.complainant if he considers it necessary. C. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . . 1881.).C.Police is not empowered to investigate into a complaint involving an offence under Section 138 of the Act..It makes no difference .Company . (S.Notice had in fact been sent and this fact has come in preliminary evidence . 138-.Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground u/s 482 Cr. (Sheela Vs Gopalakrishnan).) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.Drawer sought some time to make the payment ..) 704 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs State of Orissa & Anr. (S.Managing Director under the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association authorised to file a complaint or suit Signing of complaint by Managing Director and not by authorised officer is not fatal to the case of the complainant.Complaint on the basis of dishonour of cheque for the second time is not maintainable.Notice received by drawer .138 of the Act .) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389 #15: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Wife of accused received notice .Jayaswami & Anr. there is sufficient compliance with the provision and all other contentions to the contrary cannot be accepted at all. Bangalore Vs M/s.Sent without signatures of Advocate on it .) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.Jayaswami & Anr. (M/s.Notice . 138-.P.Notice .Dishonour of cheque .Proprietorship concern . 138-.) : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 268 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 533 : 2004(2) ICC 834 #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 704 #9: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C..Offence is covered u/s 138 NI Act . 1881.).Proof of sending notice at the last known address is sufficient compliance with the provision of S. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 165 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590 (KERALA) #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) KER. (Maan Agro Centre Vs Eid Parry (India) Ltd. 138-. 1881. Vs State of Orissa & Anr.. & Anr.C.It can be described as M/s ABC through its proprietor (Name of proprietor) or proprietor (name of proprietor) of firm M/s ABC etc. (Janardhanan Vs Jayachandran).Notice issued .P..Proviso (b) .Held. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (ORISSA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 369 (ORISSA) : 2005 CRI LJ 2896 : 2006 ALL LJ 129 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 394 : 2005(29) ALL IND CAS 386 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 469 : 2005 BANK J 956 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 845 : 2005(99) CUT LT 424 : 2005(4) ICC 708 : 2005(3) OCR 714 : 2005(1) ORISSA LR 284 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI. 1881.Absence of specific pleading in complaint as to service of notice .) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.Notice issued and on failure to make the payment complaint filed Cause of action accrues only once . 1881.Menon Ventures. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 252 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 551 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3274 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 592 : 2005(1) ALT(CRI. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels).Notice .Jayaswami & Anr. (M/s. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (ORISSA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 369 (ORISSA) : 2005 CRI LJ 2896 : 2006 ALL LJ 129 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 394 : 2005(29) ALL IND CAS 386 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 469 : 2005 BANK J 956 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 845 : 2005(99) CUT LT 424 : 2005(4) ICC 708 : 2005(3) OCR 714 : 2005(1) ORISSA LR 284 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S. 1881.). 398 : 2005(3) CIV J 767 : 2006(129) COM CAS 93 : 2005(3) CRIMES 342 (KER. 1881. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KARNATAKA) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonest intention and misrepresentation are to be specifically indicated to attract the provisions of Section 406 or 420 IPC and in absence of specific allegations offence is covered only u/s 138 of NI Act.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.Complaint Filed by Managing Director through authorised officer .It is not necessary to examine postman or wife of accused to prove that wife of accused had been duly authorised by accused to receive notice.Birla 3M Ltd. 138-.) 704 #8: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .referred to police for investigation u/s 156(3) Cr.On request of drawer cheque again presented Cheque again dishonoured . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Insufficient funds . 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 254 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.It does not cause any prejudice to the accused.).Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr..C. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (ORISSA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 369 (ORISSA) : 2005 CRI LJ 2896 : 2006 ALL LJ 129 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 394 : 2005(29) ALL IND CAS 386 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 469 : 2005 BANK J 956 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 845 : 2005(99) CUT LT 424 : 2005(4) ICC 708 : 2005(3) OCR 714 : 2005(1) ORISSA LR 284 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 . 138-..Provision of Section 420 IPC is not attracted unless mala fide intention of the person issuing the cheque is established .). (S. 141-. (A.) #20: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company ..C.Cheque returned by bank with endorsement 'account closed' .Cheque again presented and again dishonoured .There is no requirement of law that complaint must be signed and presented by the complainant himself .Dishonour of cheque . 142-. 138. 138-. 138.C.Limitation .Prasad). since no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant on the first dishonour of cheque as such subsequent complaint is maintainable.C. . 138.) ) 2005 SC 2494 : 2005(3) KCCR 1557 : 2005(2) KHCACJ 226 : 2005(4) MPHT 163 : 2005(3) MPLJ 271 : 2005(3) MAH LJ 754 : 2005(31) OCR 645 : 2005(2) REC CRI R 860 : 2005(4) SCC 173 : 2005(4) SCJ 503 : 2005(4) SRJ 597 : 2005(4) SCALE 354 : 2005 SCC(CRI. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels). (Jaspal Singh Bedi Vs State of Punjab & Anr.C. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 596 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 1061 : 2005(1) ALL CRI LR 173 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 273 : 2005(1) CHAND CRI C 126 : 2005(1) ICC 525 : 2005(2) KLJ 340 (P&H) #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.C.Accused held guilty under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. prosecute or defend the same.Not signed by complainant but signed by counsel . 2005(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 604 (S.Held. 1881.) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389 .) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.Plea of accused that he did not receive notice .It amounts to returning of cheque unpaid . 1897 . 1963.Complaint can be filed within one month of service of notice..Dishonour of cheque . 1881.. (Rakesh Raja Vs Naru Mohammed Sheikh).Cognizance taken . 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S. 142-.V. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 345 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 705 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 77 : AIR 2007 NOC 286 (RAJ.) 1020 : #19: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.: 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802 #16: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . the question whether a person is in charge of or is responsible to the company for conduct of its business is to be adjudicated on the basis of materials to be placed by the parties and whether allegations contained are sufficient to attract culpability is matter for adjudication at the trial. 1881..).Person incharge and responsible to the company . 1881.On request of complainant Court returned the cheque as complainant pleaded that on verification he ascertained that the accused did not receive the notice personally . 138-.Ltd.General Clauses Act.) : AIR 2005 SC 2436 : 2005 CRI LJ 2566 : 2005 AIR SCW 2364 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 474 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 87 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R 1858 : 2005(30) ALL IND CAS 51 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI) 1580 : 2005(2) ALT(CRI. (M/s. (S. in case of non payment .Same principle is also incorporated in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act. the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded and similar provision has been made in Section 12 (2) for appeal etc.C.. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (ORISSA) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.).Second complaint filed on failure to make payment inspite of notice Presumption of service of first notice sent by registered post is available to the complainant and not to the opposite party and moreover accused himself has stated that he did not receive the notice which was conceded to by the complainant . 1897.Held.In computing the period of limitation in any suit etc.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.One month for filing complaint is to be reckoned from the day immediately following the day on which the period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer expires.Rules of limitation Act and General clauses Act apply under Negotiable Instrument Act.). 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Court rejected recall petition .Quashing of complaint sought on ground that complaint when read as a whole not disclosing commission of an offence or that some of the accused are lawyers and/or other professionals who had no scope for direct participation in the conduct of business of the company . 142-.) SC 278 : 2005(2) BANK CLR 528 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 1 : 2005 BANKING J 406 : 2005(3) CTC 380 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 267 : 2005 CG LJ 391 : 2005(3) CIV LJ 620 : 2005(125) COM CAS 188 : 2005 CRI LR(SC MAH GUJ) SC 450 : 2005 CRI LR (SC&MP) SC 450 : 2005(2) CRIMES 141 (SC) : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 167 : 2005(2) EAST CRI C 291 : 2005(2) GCD SC 1627 : 2005(3) GUJ LR 2053 : 2005(3) ICC 444 : ILR(KANT.) : 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (S.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI. Section 9 Limitation Act. 1881.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 720 (S.Gangadhar Vs K.Complaint .Muzumdar & Ors.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI. & Anr.Complaint .. Vs Gujarat State Fertilizer Co.Dishonour of cheque .Pleader in whose favour Vakalatnama is executed is duly competent to appear for the complainant in the case and to conduct. Section 12 (2) . Name.Need not to be written by the signatory to the cheque . 138-..Name of proprietor sought to be inserted by way of amendment . 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #5: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.Complaint is maintainable .) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Amendment of complaint Complaint filed against proprietorship concern through its proprietor but name of its proprietor not mentioned .Received back as addressee left the place .Court instead ordering comparison of handwriting of complainant with the disputed handwriting on cheque - .Cheque dishonoured ...)..Notice .Cheque presented again .A.Cause of action accrues only when notice is given and drawer fails to make the payment . 1881. 1881. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S. 1881.Cheque presented for the second time . (Maan Agro Centre Vs Eid Parry (India) Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI. 1881. 138-. 138-.. as the same is not pleaded and complaint is filed pleading accrual of cause of action for the second time.Thamotharan Vs Dalmia Cements (B) Ltd.Notice issued . 138.S. 1881.#22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. no cause of action arises to file complaint.C. (Jai Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta). 138-.A cheque can be filled up by anybody if it is signed by the account holder of the cheque. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 608 (MADRAS) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 671 (MADRAS) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Notice .Cheque .Complaint not filed .Cheque again dishonoured .Recording of statement of complainant is not dispensed with by incorporation of Sections 145 and 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint on the basis of dishonour of cheque for the second time . date and amount alleged to be put by the complainant and complainant denied this suggestion . (P. accepting the amount mentioned therein.Name. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S. 1881.If no notice is given within 15 days.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.Cause of action arises only once. 138-.Cheque can be presented any number of times within its validity but it will not give fresh cause of action every time .C. 1881.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.Body of cheque .). 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 552 (KERALA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 189 (KERALA) #3: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C..Accused moved an application for comparison of his handwriting with the disputed handwriting on the cheque .. 138-.Payment not made .C.Dishonour of cheque ..Fact of service of notice mentioned in complaint but not specifically mentioned in statement .Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr. (M/s. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 672 (P&H) #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 138-. (M/s.Notice issued . 1881.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.Complaint is not maintainable even though complaint is within limitation from the first accrual of cause of action. 142-.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta). 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #4: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 254 (BOMBAY) #25: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.A conjoin reading of complaint and statement clearly reveal the essential ingredients of the provision.Cheque .Amendment allowed.).Complaint filed on the basis of dishonour of cheque for the second time . 138-. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 829 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 690 (RAJASTHAN) #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. Magistrate has committed no illegality or irregularity.Statement not to be read in isolation from the complaint .) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI. date and amount alleged to be put by complainant and complainant denied this suggestion .Held.Court directing for comparison of handwriting of complainant with the disputed handwriting on the cheque .) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389 #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). & Anr.Has to be given within 15 days of receipt of information from bank . (M/s Delhi Cloth Store Vs M/s Ahuja Traders).When notice issued at the first instance there was no `giving of notice' and `receipt' of the same and there was no accrual of cause of action. 1881.. 1881. (Bhadran Vs Sunil Kumar). ) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.) 2005(1) KER 395 : 2005(1) KLJ 301 : 2005(1) KLT 478 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Mohana Pai Vs V.. (b) that the cheque was presented within the prescribed period.P.Cheque given as security .I.Preliminary evidence Proceedings before Magistrate u/s 200 Cr..Held. whether such statement be tested by a cross examination or not. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 09 (KERALA) : 2004(3) KLT 330 : 2005 MLJ (CRI.. (M/s. Act. Act.It is material alteration which amounts to cancellation of the instrument . 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Blank cheque .Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220 #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.I. 1881. 147-. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 829 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 690 (RAJASTHAN) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). if cheque is filled up and presented to bank.) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.3 of Evidence Act. Magistrate has committed no illegality or irregularity. (General Auto Sales Vs Vijayalakshmi).) 484 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Lalu Vs Kalam).) 177 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 289 : 2005 BANK J 571 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 371 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 457 : 2005(2) ICC 441 : ILR(KER. 1881.Cheque bounced Comes within fold of S..Six cheques .147 of the Act.Notice .) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI. (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala). (Ramachandran Vs Dinesan). and (d) that the drawer failed to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.C. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 197 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 353 : 2005 CRI LJ 1237 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 666 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 667 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI. 1881. 138-.Cheque . (c) that the payee made a demand for payment of the money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer within the stipulated period.Criminal prosecution cannot be launched on it.Any statement which Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses..C.).Joint trial .C.`Receipt of information' . 1881. 138-. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 158 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 277 (KERALA) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. (M.A.It shall be taken that parties have compounded the offence . (Mohammed Vs State of Kerala). (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala). 138-. 1881. 138.Facts to be proved are: (a) that the cheque was drawn for payment of an amount of money for discharge of a debt/liability and the cheque was dishonoured.C. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 538 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 715 (KERALA) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 390 : 2005(1) KLJ 296 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Offence u/s 138 .138 of N.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Acquittal is justified.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S.) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI. when the liability is assessed and quantified.Cheque amount paid and complainant received the same .. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 386 (KERALA) : 2005(3) ALLMR 6 : 2005 CRI LJ 1454 : 2005(2) . (Amina Vs Baby).. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.A.Preliminary evidence Statement of a complainant u/s 200 Cr. 1881. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 386 (KERALA) : 2005(3) ALLMR 6 : 2005 CRI LJ 1454 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 455 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 597 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 234 : 2005(2) ICC 666 : ILR(KER. will certainly be evidence for the purpose of S.Correction in amount of cheque without consent of maker of cheque .If cheques were issued as part of the same transaction then all the cases can be jointly tried.C. (Jai Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.Jabbar & Anr.When given towards liability or even as security. 1881. every offence punishable under the Act is compoundable..). 138-. 138-.With the amendment introduced in S.Dishonour of cheque . (General Auto Sales Vs Vijayalakshmi).Cheque reaching drawers bank beyond six months from its date ..Relevant date is the date of receipt of intimation and not the date of letter of intimation. 1881.) 2005(1) KER. person who had drawn the cheque cannot avoid liability under section 138 of N. 87-. is evidence . 138-. 1881.. is an inquiry u/s 2(g) of the Code. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 665 (MADRAS) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696 (MADRAS) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.... 138-. 1881.C. 1881.C.Sent by Registered post at correct address .) 2272 : 2004(3) BLR 289 : 2004(2) BOM CR (CRI) 2 : 2004 CAL CRI R 563 : 2004(2) CAL HN 183 : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 74 : 2004(98) . 138-.) : AIR 2004 SC 3978 : 2005 CRI LJ 3853 : 2004 AIR SCW 4344 : 2004(2) ALL CJ 1591 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 824 : 2004 ALL MR (CRI.). (V.Acquittal upheld.V.Perumal).No interference.) : 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 795 (S.No allegation in complaint that husband has been doing business alongwith his wife and that the cheques were issued in discharge of her liability Held.V.ALL CRI LR 455 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 597 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 234 : 2005(2) ICC 666 : ILR(KER.) 2005(1) KER 395 : 2005(1) KLJ 301 : 2005(1) KLT 478 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. 1881. (N. 138-. (Dharmendra Kumbhat & Ors.Complaint cannot be dismissed at the threshold on the ground that there is no proper service of notice .C.Provision of S.) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 119 (S.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 308 (S.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.) : AIR 2005 SC 109 : 2004 AIRSCW 6344 : 2004(8) ACE 176 : 2005(1) ALD (CRL) 119 : 2004(3) ALLCRIC 3070 : 2005(1) ALLCRILR 74 : 2004(24) ALLINDCAS 69 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 269 : 2004(2) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 447 : 2005(1) BLJ 479 : 2005(1) BANKCLR 11 : 2005(1) BANKCAS 1 : 2005 BANKJ 1 : 2005(1) BOMCR(CRI) 730 : 2005(5) CTC 268 : 2004 CALCRILR 1161 : 2004(3) CHANDCRIC 370 : 2005(1) CIVLJ 735 : 2005(124) COMCAS 1 : 2005(2) COMLJSC 20 : 2004(4) CRIMES 277 : 2004(4) CURCRIR 211 : 2005(79) DRJ 114 : 2005(1) EASTCRIC 60 : 2005(1) ICC 403 : ILR (KANT) 2005 SC 409 : 2005(1) JLJR 143 : 2004(9) JT 431 : 2004(4) KHCACJ 378 : 2004(3) KERLT 799 : 2004(4) LRI 481 : 2005(1) MPHT 203 : 2005(1) MPLJ 432 : 2004 MADLJ(CRI) 1104 : 2005(1) MAHLJ 1087 : 2004(29) OCR 866 : 2005(1) PATLJR 235 : 2004(4) RCR 933 : 2004(8) SCC 774 : 2004(6) SLT 443 : 2004(9) SCALE 199 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 393 : 2004(8) SUPREME 4 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Conviction and sentence set aside .Cheque issued as a guarantee . 138-.Notice .Issac Vs Jeemon P. 1881.Order of acquittal .C.Notice .Dishonour of cheque .138 will apply. (Anil Kumar Haritwal Vs Alka Gupta). (Sri Murugan Financiers Vs P. 1881.. 1881.It is for complainant to prove that acknowledgement issued was by some one authorised on behalf of accused company and not by any body from sister concern ..147 of Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Cheque issued by wife .Burden is on complainant to show that accused managed to get an incorrect postal endorsement made and what is the effect of it has to be considered during trial.C. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors..Offence u/s 138 is compoundable under S. 138-.In appeal parties compromised .Abraham & Anr.Raja Kumari Vs P. 1881.Complaint against husband and wife .) : 2004(4) REC CRI R 466 #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. proceedings against husband not sustainable.) : 2005 CRILJ 127 (S.Notice whether has been served has to be decided during trial .PW 1 examined on behalf of company on point had no knowledge who had put initials and whether person putting seal on initial was authorised by accused company to receive notice . 2004(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 581 (S.Home Products Ltd.There was no reason to issue cheque at the same time This probabilises that cheque was issued only as a guarantee for the amount payable by the accused..Company .A.Loan taken from finance company . 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (S.C.Notice received back with postal endorsement 'house locked' .).Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (S. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 768 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 206 (RAJASTHAN) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint . 138-.Promissory notes for various amounts executed .Notice was not addressed to any specific individual but simply to Director . (D.C. (Sri Murugan Financiers Vs P.Conviction .Subbarama Naidu).Offence u/s 138 is not made out . 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 678 (KERALA) #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Period of one month for filing complaint has to be reckoned from the date immediately following the day on which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice by the drawer expires. (Krishnankutty Nair Vs Ashokan).W.C.) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 354 (S.) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 176 (S..Notice served upon sister concern .). 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Cheque issued when account had already been closed . 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 665 (MADRAS) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696 (MADRAS) #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Perumal). 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 736 (BOMBAY) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 244 (BOMBAY) #23: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It is for the trial Court to alertly consider the acceptability of such request and ensure that the cheque is forwarded to the expert only if satisfactory reasons are available.I.'Within thirty days' .C. 138-. 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 461 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ 3648 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 504 : 2004(23) ALL IND CASE 740 : 2004 ALL MR(CRI. S. 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 2004(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 13 (KERALA) : 2004(4) RCR(CRI.Hutagee Vs Gangadhar S.).Limitation . 1881.Unless the case falls within `just exception' contemplated u/s 145 of N.) 3214 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.Presentation of cheque to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn .Every such request not to be allowed . Act. 1881...) 3214 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI. 138.Means information received from the bank where cheque is presented for collection and not from information sent by drawer's bank to payee's bank.Proviso (b) . 145-.Hutagekar).) 865 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Ajay Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.65 of Evidence Act..Cheque ...) 738 : 2005(1) CUR CRI R 35 : 2004(4) ICC 641 : 2004(4) MAH LJ 132 #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Request to send the cheque to handwriting expert for examination . 283 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 320 : 2004(4) CUR CRI R 216 : 2004(2) KLJ 329 : 2004(2) KLT 1080 #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .Not issued within 15 days of receipt of notice from bank regarding dishonour of cheque .Preliminary evidence . 138-. 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 628 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : 2005 CRI LJ 375 : 2004 AIR KANT HCR 3408 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 432 : 2004(30) ALL IND CAS 309 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 33 : 2005 BANK J 985 : 2005(1) CVUR CRI R 124 : ILR(KANT. (Srikanth P.P. 138-.Proviso (a) . 138-.Arif Vs Boston Tea (India) Limited.M. (Srikanth P.Means cheque to be presented to the Bank on which the cheque is drawn. and should not insist on personal appearance and examination of the complainant to give sworn statement.65).) 2004(2) KAR 2382 : 2004(3) KCCR 1455 : 2004(5) KANT LJ 439 : 2005(1) RCR(CRI.Period of one month cannot be read/taken as period of 30 days. (Chitaranjan Vs Jayarajan). Ss. Court must receive affidavits as evidence at the stage of S. 138-.Cheque issued by proprietor .Permissible by way of affidavit . 1973. 138-.200 Cr. 138-. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 810 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.254 & 315 Dishonour of cheque .Criminal Procedure Code.) 738 : 2005(1) CUR CRI R 35 : 2004(4) ICC 641 : 2004(4) MAH LJ 132 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 253 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Proceedings can be launched against the person who had drawn the cheque whether it is in his capacity as the proprietor of the firm or in personal capacity.Defence witness ...Summoning of .. (Ajay Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Francis Vs Pradeep).) 69 : 2004 CRI LJ 3827 : 2004(2) DCR 363 : 2005(1) CRIMES 265 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 441 : 2004(2) ALT(CRI.Hutagekar). 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (KARNATAKA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3815 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 350 : 2004(22) ALL IND CAS 602 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 82 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 531 : 2004(5) KANT LJ 145 : 2004(4) RCR(CRI. 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (KERALA) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 614 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Original cheque lost . (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala).).If cheque is really lost it would be improper and incorrect to deny the complainant an opportunity to substantiate his grievance by adducing secondary evidence as permitted under S.. (Babu Vs Suresh). 138-. 1881.) KER.Firm need not to be impleaded as a party . Mangalore). (Evidence Act. 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 461 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ 3648 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 504 : 2004(23) ALL IND CASE 740 : 2004 ALL MR(CRI.Hutagee Vs Gangadhar S.Accused himself not examined as a witness .Notice is not valid.His application to summon defence witness cannot be rejected on the ground that he should first himself be examined as a witness.Proprietorship firm .CUT LR 634 : 2004(2) KLT 725 : 2004(3) PLR 3681 : 2004(3) REC CIV R 116 : 2004(4) SCC 366 : 2004(4) SLT 959 : 2004 SCC(CRI.Secondary evidence Photocopy of cheque already on record . 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (KARNATAKA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3815 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 350 : .One month .) 1084 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 1872. (B. 1881. 1881. 1881. 1881. 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (KARNATAKA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3815 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 350 : 2004(22) ALL IND CAS 602 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 82 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 531 : 2004(5) KANT LJ 145 : 2004(4) RCR(CRI. (G.Venugopala Krishna).Complaint therefore not maintainable.). : 2004(3) BLJR 1763 : 2004(2) BANK CLR 714 : 2004 BANK J 906 : 2004(2) BOM.Cheque presented twice and dishonoured Complaint filed on the basis of second dishonoured .) : AIR 2004 SC 4274 : 2004 CRI LJ 4249 : 2004 AIR SCW 4716 : 2004(6) ACE 529 : 2004(2) ALL CJ 1935 : 2004(50) ALL CRI C 412 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 963 : 2004(3) ALL CRI R 2084 : 2004(21) ALL IND CAS 1 : 2004(56) ALL LR 713 : 2004(2) ALT (CRI. holder in due course and endorsee . 1881. 138-. 141-.2004(22) ALL IND CAS 602 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 82 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 531 : 2004(5) KANT LJ 145 : 2004(4) RCR(CRI.Loan taken . 1881.Order of Magistrate discharging the appellants restored.Notice sent as per registered post received back with postal endorsement 'addressee left' .Complaint cannot be said to be not maintainable for the reason that no legal action was initiated when cheque was dishonoured for the first time. 636 : 2004(3) KLJ 575 : 2004(3) KLT 355 : 2004(4) RCR(CRI.Account could be operated by either of them .Cheque which had been issued as security transforms itself into a cheque representing liability in terms of agreement .These words carry same meaning as they are understood in civil jurisprudence .) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 488 (S. (Srikanth P.) 1857 : 2004(2) UJ(SC) 1337 : 2004(9) AD 22 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Annaji Rao Vs N. 1881.Housing Private Limited..) : 2004 CRI LJ 2911 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.) : 2004(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 473 (S.No evidence led that notice sent under certificate of posting was in fact served on drawer of cheque .Account holder who has not drawn the cheque is not liable u/s 138 of the Act.Magistrate cannot take cognizance of same by treating complaint as one under Indian Penal Code regarding offence of heating where complaint does not make out case of offence under Indian Penal Code. 138.Krishna Raju Sekhar & Anr.Partners .P. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.C..) 815 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 718 : 2004(4) ALT 491 : 2005(1) BANK CLR 185 : 2004(4) CAS 160 : 2004(121) COM CAS 831 : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 418 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Hutagekar).Cheque issued by one to discharge his liability . CR (CRI.A.) 641 . 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 547 (A.R..) 512 : 2004 CAL CRI R 1007 : 2004(2) CAL LJ 215 : 2004(3) CHAND LR (CIV&CRI) 714 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 717 : 2004(5) COM LJ SC 91 : 2004(61) COR LA 168 : 2004(3) CRIMES 231 (SC) : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 88 : 2004(3) EAST CRI C 158 : 2005(1) GCD SC 325 : 2004(3) GUJ LH 769 : 2005(1) GUJ LR 21 : 2004(4) ICC 680 : 2004(22) IND LD 145 : 2004(2) JCJR 172 : JT 2004(6) SC 309 : 2004(3) KHCACJ 570 : 2004(3) KLT 428 : 2005(1) MPHT 97 : 2004(29) OCR 149 : 2004(4) PAT LJR 91 : 2004(3) PLR 615 : 2004(3) RAJ CRI C 753 : 2004(4) RAJ LW 499 : 2004(3) REC CRI R 799 : 2004(7) SCC 15 : 2004(54) SEBI&CL SC 595 : 2004(7) SRJ 548 : 2004(6) SCALE 507 : 2004 SCC(CRI.. 138-..P.C.) KER 501 : ILT(KER) 2004(3) KER. 1881. (K. 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 649 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 285 (KERALA) : 2004(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 611 : I(2005) BANKING CASES 273 : 2004 CRI LJ 4710 : 2004(24) ALL IND CAS 909 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI.Hutagee Vs Gangadhar S.P.) 16 : 2004(2) ALT(CRI.Complaint barred by limitation . 138-.Security .). Vs K.).Agreement executed to repay loan within six months and cheque issued as security to be encashed in case of failure to pay loan amount .Accused is guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act.Absence of averments in complaint that partners are Incharge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm . (K.No proper service of notice .Partnership .C.. (Devi Vs Haridas). (Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr.C.A.Annaji Rao Vs N.).Loan not paid . Bangalore & Anr.) 815 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 718 : 2004(4) ALT 491 : 2005(1) BANK CLR 185 : 2004(4) CAS 160 : 2004(121) COM CAS 831 : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 418 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Jabbar & Anr. (M.'Another person' refers to payee.Consideration inter se between drawee and holder in due course is not necessary to bind drawer.) 237 S. 138-. 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 547 (A.Sent as per registered post and also through certificate of posting ..Joint Account Holder . 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (S.Notice .) : 2004 CRI LJ 2911 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI. 1881.Fact of dishonour of cheque when presented first not mentioned in complaint . 1881.) 865 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Mohana Pai Vs V.Krishna Raju Sekhar & Anr.) 865 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . holder. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2004(1) KLT 457 #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Sebastian Vs State of Kerala). not with a view to find fault with it.22.P. (Sri Krishna Bhupathi Vs Chandana Constructions).. (Bhavani Agencies.R.69 Partnership Act is not applicable to criminal proceedings.Notice is to be construed. Bangalore Vs G. 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (KARNATAKA) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT . Bangalore & Anr. 138-. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 86 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 47 (KARNATAKA) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Cause of action accrues on the following day on which period of 15 days expires.Partnership firm .Venugopala Krishna). 138-. 138-.Complaint by partner of an unregistered firm is maintainable as S.#16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 000/.R. 1881. 138-. (Sri Krishna Bhupathi Vs Chandana Constructions). 138-..Notice issued to payee not to present cheque Cannot prevent payee from presenting cheque to his Bank for collection of amount and from instituting criminal proceedings on dishonour of cheque. Bangalore & Anr. (G. Bangalore & Anr.Housing Private Limited.Not a ground for quashing proceedings. Vs K.Not necessary that legal heirs or legal representatives only can continue the proceedings . 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 139 (KERALA) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 390 (KERALA) : 2004 CRI LJ 2220 : 2004(2) DCR 139 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 345 : 2004(2) BANK CAS 566 : 2004(3) CHAND LR (CIV&CRI) 307 : ILR(KER.Burden to prove that there subsists no debt or liability is on accused.for the due discharge of the liability (including interest) .Payment already made . Vs K.Accrues on expiry of 15 days 15 Days period starts to run on the day notice is received . 1881. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 219 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 55 (KARNATAKA) #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Plea of . 138-..V. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 86 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 47 (KARNATAKA) #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 05 (KERALA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 223 (KERALA) : 2004(1) KLT 457 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). (A.) 2004(3) KER 557 : 2004(1) KLJ 590 : 2004(1) KLT 1079 : 2004(53) SEBI&CL KER 199 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Proper and reasonable opportunity means an opportunity fairly appropriate under the circumstances of the trial and not denying the accused to put forth.Petitioner failed to adduced defence evidence despite several opportunities Application rejected..Housing Private Limited. he cannot complain that he was not given reasonable or proper opportunity . 1881.Sister .Slight variation between amount of cheque amount and that mentioned in notice . but is to be construed with view to give effect to it.Complainant .. 138-.Does not invalidate notice .A fit and proper person can be permitted to prosecute the petition..Cheque dishonoured . (G.'Guarantee' . 1881.Same to be proved at the trial .issued against loan of Rs. (Venugopalan Vs Moosa).Death during pendency of proceedings . his case or to lead defence evidence . (Sebastian Vs State of Kerala).Complainant . the accused fails to avail of the opportunity of leading defence evidence.Cause of action .. 1881..P.When despite grant of time for defence evidence. 1881.Hasan Bava Vs P..Cheque without consideration .20. 138-.C. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 24 (KARNATAKA) #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 000/. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 86 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 47 (KARNATAKA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It cannot be said that cheque is not issued for the due discharge of any legally enforceable debt/liability.Death during pendency of proceedings .Additional evidence at appellate stage . 1881.Cheque for Rs.Can be allowed to continue the proceedings when legal heirs do not chose to come on record to prosecute the petition.Venugopala Krishna).Notice .Upadhya).Colour Lab.Unregistered . 1881. 1881. 138-. (Sri Krishna Bhupathi Vs Chandana Constructions). Sentences to run concurrently.He had not either drawn or signed the cheque .).Dishonour of cheque .If amount is filled up subsequently without consent of the person who issued the cheque then presumption u/s 139 stands rebutted . 384 : 2004(1) KLJ 727 : 2004(1) KLT 816 : 2004(52) SEBI & CL KER.. Vs Anitha).Such a cheque falls within the sweep of S.Dissolution . 1881. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300 (GUJARAT) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 264 (GUJARAT) #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.He was merely a non-executive Director of the Company .) : 2004(1) CRIMES 567 : 2004(1) ALT (CRL. 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 65 (KERALA) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. when cheque is presented and dishonoured after termination of hire purchase agreement then no offence is made out u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 335 (A. (Salim Vs Thomas). (Raghubhai Surabhai Bharwad Vs Satishkumar Ranchhoddas Patel & Anr... 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 194 (RAJASTHAN) #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Abdul Hameed Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. in whole or in part. 139-.Company .Cheque without actual amount payable is not a cheque . criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution simplicitor without examining the merits thereof. of any debt or other liability.Proceedings against petitioner quashed.Held.One partner issued cheque to the other towards his liability .Post dated cheque issued against loan taken for motor vehicle on hire purchase basis .Part payment remained unpaid even after expiry of 15 days from the date of receipt of notice . 1881.Received by wife of the petitioner Notice is duly served upon petitioner.Dishonour of cheque ..Presumption is that cheque was for the discharge.A blank cheque cannot be enforced even though it is issued for legal liability. 1881. 1881.Possession of vehicle taken by owner .2 who was in sole management and incharge of day-to-day affairs of the company .) 2004(3) KERL 312 : 2004(3) KHC ACJ 289 : 2004(2) KLT 746 : 2004(2) KLJ 138 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.) 14 : 2004(3) CIV LR 294 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 1035 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Poineer Products Limited & Ors.. 1881. 138-. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 418 (BOMBAY) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 342 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ 2343 : 2004(20) ALL IND CAS 188 : 2004 ALL MR(CRI. 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 666 (P&H) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (P&H) #2: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Maniar Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. 138-. 138-. (Raghubhai Surabhai Bharwad Vs Satishkumar Ranchhoddas Patel & Anr.Payments made before the presentation of cheque and before receipt of notice .Default in repayment of loan .Part payment made .P.. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (A.He had resigned from the Board of Directors before issuance of the cheque . (Chaitan M.Appeal against .Dishonour of cheque .).Nothing precludes a Court from taking into account prior payments made before the presentation of the cheque or before the receipt of notice in .Notice not given to petitioner who was one of the directors of the company .) 2004(3) KER. (Satpal Chaudhary Vs Kuldip Mahajan & Anr. 141-. 138-..) 90 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 2027 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 584 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.).It was accused No. (Thekkan & Co. 138.Dismissal in absence of counsel for appellant .138 of the Act.Amount payable can be filled up subsequently with the consent of the person who issued the cheque . 138-. 138..Conviction in two separate cases . 138-. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (KERALA) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 472 (KERALA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3418 : 2004(4) ALL CRI LR 165 : 2004(21) ALL INC CAS 336 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 71 : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 437 : 2004(3) ICC 526 : ILT(KER. 1881. 1881.). 1881.Blank cheque . 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300 (GUJARAT) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 264 (GUJARAT) #3: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P..Hire purchase agreement is thus terminated .Held. 293 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Avon Organics Ltd. (Sudha Beevi Vs State of Kerala)..Partnership firm .Notice .).Cheque issued after closure of account .Conviction . 1881. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (KERALA) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 439 (KERALA) : 2004 CRI LJ 3096 : 2004(2) ALL CRI LR 791 : 2004(17) ALL IND CAS 461 : 2005(1) BANK CAS 41 : 2004(4) ICC 618 : ILR(KER. 138-.Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured .Accused has committed the offence u/s 138 NI Act.). 138-.Applicability . (Raghubhai Surabhai Bharwad Vs Satishkumar Ranchhoddas Patel & Anr. 1881. 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 231 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 348 (KARNATAKA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Date of service .`Receipt of information' . (Chandradasan Vs George).138 applies and relationship of parties is not at all a factor germane to the proceeding.Complaint alleged to be premature . 138-.Proprietorship concern . (Goa Plast (P) Ltd.Notice . 1881. 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 65 (KERALA) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 53-. 1881. (Thekkan & Co. 138-.) 660 : 2004(2) BOM LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI LR 113 : 2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI..) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME 490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC) 525 : 2004(1) TNLR 102 #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300 (GUJARAT) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 264 (GUJARAT) #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Dishonour of cheque Prosecution of a partner .It is legally perverse to .C.142 of the Act if other conditions in the sections are satisfied. 1881. 1881. 138-... 1881.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S. Banglore Vs Anupam Ghosh). 1881.Trial Court directed to compel appearance of witnesses.69(2) Partnership Act is not applicable as it bars filing of a civil suit and not a criminal complaint.) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 : 2003(117) COM CAS 781 : 2004(2) COM LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 248 : 2004(1) CRIMES 81 (SC) : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13) IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC 451 : 2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI.Date of service of notice not indicated on postal acknowledgment .). 138-.. Vs Anitha)..It is not necessary to implead the proprietary concern as a party when it is a sole proprietary concern.). 138-.deciding whether the amount due under the cheque has been paid.Applicability .When it is a legally enforceable debt or liability then S..Not required to be specifically stated in the complaint .Partnership firm . (Beacon Industries. (Neelam Sharma Vs M/s.Complaint filed on next day is valid. 142.) 26 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 348 : 2004(27) OCR 476 : 2004(1) PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7) SLT 247 : 2003(9) SCALE 791 : 2004 SCC(CRI.Held.Evidence closed . 138-.Sri Gangadas Irrigation System)..Incharge and responsible .Period of 30 days expiring on a holiday .) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR 471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR 733 : 2004(1) BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI..Legal representative of the payee or holder in due course can file a complaint u/s 138 read with S. (Inder Sehgal Vs M/s Thakar Petro Chemicals Ltd..It is the function of the person receiving the notice to place the date of receipt of notice.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 : 2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 : 2004(13) ALL IND CAS 741 : 2004(1) ALT(CRI. 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 641 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 12 (KERALA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza). 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 171 (RAJASTHAN) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. it is duty of Court to compel appearance of witnesses .Order of closer of evidence is improper . 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 580 (P&H) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 18 (P&H) #12: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Partnership firm .S. 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 291 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 774 (KERALA) #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Oral information is not sufficient. (Chandra Babu Vs Remani).C.Provision . 138.) : AIR 2004 SC 408 : 2004 CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC 235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 : 2004 CLC 51 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.Witnesses not turning up despite service of summons .Proviso (b) .Dishonor of cheque . 138-..Substance of complaint must show that he was incharge and responsible for conduct of business of firm.) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S. 138-. 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 520 (KARNATAKA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 714 (KARNATAKA) #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Provision .Unregistered firm can prosecute criminal complaint regarding dishonour of cheque . 1881. 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S. 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 652 (KERALA) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Shivaraj Vs Gurudeva).Means receipt of information from bank in writing . (Immanuel Vs Rajappan). Payee however not indorsed the cheque in favour of Bank . equity.Merely because the drawer issued notice to the drawee or to the bank for stoppage of payment it will not preclude an action under S.Cheque . 138-.Dishonour of cheque .C. 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S.say that provision is applicable only in case of transaction involving Mercantile relationship. (Goa Plast (P) Ltd. 1881.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S. 138-.S..Amendment Cheque number and date of information received from bank sought to be amended .Company .) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (P&H) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 380 (P&H) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).'Holder in due course' . 1881.Bank purchasing cheque from payee . 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 601 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 38 (KERALA) : 2003(3) KLT 721 #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 1881. 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 608 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 232 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) DCR 158 (RAJ. (Bhim Singh Vs Kan Singh).C.) 26 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 348 : 2004(27) OCR 476 : 2004(1) PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7) SLT 247 : 2003(9) SCALE 791 : 2004 SCC(CRI.Held.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 : 2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 : 2004(13) ALL IND CAS 741 : 2004(1) ALT(CRI.'Stop payment' .Complaint .'Holder in due course'.By itself not a ground to contend that cheque is not validly issued or that the cheque was not executed at all.No allegation that Directors were responsible for control of day to day business of company or had active role in issuing cheques . 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (P&H) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 380 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Punjab National Bank Vs Himgiri Traders & Anr.Criminal Courts have an auxiliary power subject to restrictions which justice. (Madanlal & Ors.138 Negotiable Instruments Act is not applicable when notice issued by Bank is neither by the payee nor by holder in due course... good conscience and legal provisions demand provided it will not unnecessarily prejudice somebody else .Order of cognizance against Directors quashed.) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR 471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR 733 : 2004(1) BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR 471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR 733 : 2004(1) BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI. (Lillykutty Vs Lawrance). 1881.C. 138-.No allegation in complaint that cheques were issued with consent or knowledge of Directors .C.) : 2004 CRI LJ 4306 (RAJ. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza).) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 : 2003(117) COM CAS 781 : 2004(2) COM LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 248 : 2004(1) CRIMES 81 (SC) : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13) IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC 451 : 2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI. 138.Amount and payee's name not written by drawer but by somebody else or by payee . 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S. (Punjab National Bank Vs Himgiri Traders & Anr. 1881.Amendment allowed. trial Court has inherent power to allow to rectify typographical mistakes to do justice between the parties .) 660 : 2004(2) BOM LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI LR 113 : 2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI.Directors .) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S.C. (Goa Plast (P) Ltd.) 660 : 2004(2) BOM LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI LR 113 : 2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI.) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S.) : AIR 2004 SC 408 : 2004 CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC 235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 : 2004 CLC 51 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI. Vs Bhanwarlal).).C.Means any person who for consideration became the possessor of a cheque payable to bear or the payee or indorsee thereof. 1881.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 : 2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 : 2004(13) ALL IND CAS 741 : 2004(1) ALT(CRI.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S. 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (RAJASTHAN) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT .) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 : 2003(117) COM CAS 781 : 2004(2) COM LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 248 : 2004(1) CRIMES 81 (SC) : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13) IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC 451 : 2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI. 138-.138 of the Act by the drawee or the holder of the cheque in due course.. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza). 141-.) : AIR 2004 SC 408 : 2004 CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC 235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 : 2004 CLC 51 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI..) 26 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 348 : 2004(27) OCR 476 : 2004(1) PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7) SLT 247 : 2003(9) SCALE 791 : 2004 SCC(CRI.Bank is neither the payee nor holder in due course .) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME 490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC) 525 : 2004(1) TNLR 102 #22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME 490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC) 525 : 2004(1) TNLR 102 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 567 (A.Order of taking cognizance quashed.) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 35 (A. 138-. (Shakti Bhakoo Vs Varun Khemka). 138-. 1881.).Prosecution proceedings not to be quashed at initial stage if uncontroverted allegations in complaint and evidence recorded at the preliminary stage of enquiry prima facie bring out the case within the ambit of S..Enterprises & Anr.). complainant forfeits his right to present the cheque again .Held. Vs M/s. if any and to proceed further without recording statements under S. 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.) 175 : 2003(2) ALL CRI LR 858 : 2003(4) ALL IND CAS 88 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 760 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 252 : 2003(2) CHAND LR (CIV&CRI) 630 : 2003(2) CIV LJ 611 : 2003(114) COM CAS 260 : 2003(2) KANT. 1881.M. company `A' cannot escape the liable on the premise that it is not the maker or drawer of the cheque.Dishonour of cheque ..C.Post dated cheque .Two proceedings are independent of each other . 138-. 1881..Where Civil Court which decreed suit had not made adjustment of compensation awarded by Criminal Court.Affidavits and documents in support of complaint . 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.138 of the Act is attracted. (Sunrise Oleo Chemicals Ltd.Summons .Presentation of cheque again on the ground that notice issued originally was returned unserved.200 Cr.There is no procedure for issuance of process to an accused by post .Enterprises & Anr. 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 228 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 145 (KERALA) : 2003(3) ICC 662 : 2003(3) REC CRI R 711 : 2003(2) KLT 613 #6: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.When decree passed by Civil Court is only money decree not involving award of compensation question of adjusting compensation awarded by Criminal Court against such decree does not arise .In event of dishonour of cheque he is not entitled to claim that the debt had become barred by limitation and that the liability was not thus enforceable..Dishonour of cheque .) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0654 : 2003(2) DCR 561 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138-.Clement Mary). while decreeing suit subsequently .Order as to payment of postal charges being illegal as such consequent dismissal for not taking steps is also not proper in the eye of law.M.Notice .Dishonour of cheque . (Rama Chandra Panigrahi Vs State of Orissa & Anr.) : 2003(1) CUR CRI R 180 : 2002(3) BANK CAS 403 : 2002 AIR KANT HCR 2682 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.When a person issues a cheque he acknowledges his liability to pay .Dishonour of cheque .. 1881. Court executing decree has no jurisdiction to go behind decree and make adjustment.) : 2002 CRI LJ 4446 (KANT. (Sunrise Oleo Chemicals Ltd. 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2003 KANT.Stop payment before the due date of payment ..Sister concerns . 138-. (Smt.If Criminal Court levies fine on accused and orders payment of compensation out of amount of fine. (Ramakrishnan Vs Parthasaradhy).Complaint u/s 138 as well as civil suit for recovery . & Anr. HCR 144 : 2003(2) ALD (CRL. though unserved. 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 567 (A.P. instead of taking recourse to issue notice a second time.Held.P.) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0654 : 2003(2) DCR 561 #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. LJ 120 : 2003(2) REC CRI R 739 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 134 : 2003 AIR KANT.P.Cheque issued to discharge the liability of company `A' drawn on account of company `B' which is a sister concern of company `A' .Ltd.Service .).. Vs M/s Shivashakti Poultry Farm).Notice . Vs Shri Chico Ursula D'Souza & Anr. complainant is not bared to issue another notice even though it exceeds the period of fifteen days .If service of summons is not fruitful then Court can issue bailable or nonbailable warrant of arrest . not legal and does not save the period of limitation..) #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.K. (M/s Nav Maharashtra Chakan Oil Mill Ltd.Sent deliberately at wrong address Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days of issuance of notice . & Anr.Time barred debt .Gayathri Vs Smt.Once issued.). 138-.) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 35 (A. 1881. 138-. then Civil Court can take that fact into account in moulding its award for compensation if any.K.). 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (ORISSA) : 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 314 (ORISSA) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Case dismissed for non payment of registered postal charges . S.If notice issued within time and the same is not served for any reason.Negotiable Instruments Act.138 of the Act. (Goaplast Pvt. 138-. 138-. 1881.. 1881. (Pankaj Kapoor Vs State & Ors.Magistrate has power to accept affidavit of the complainant and witnesses. Vs M/s.P. 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 358 (P&H) : 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 237 (P&H) .Cheque issued .P. 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (KARNATAKA) : 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 270 (KANT. 1881. Company . (Syamala Vs Gopakumar). 138-. 138-..No relief can be granted if it is not established that business concern mentioned as payee of the cheque is owned by the complainant.Proceedings not to be quashed against a partner on ground that he was a sleeping partner .Sleeping partner .Complaint by proprietor of the firm .) BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6) BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.. (Suresh Kumar Vs Sasi).J.Presumption of service . 138-.Not maintainable .. 139. 411 : 2002 AIR SCW 4617 : 2002(2) ALD (CRL.Notice .I.138 N.C.Cheque issued against loan .C.Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 314 (KERALA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint is barred by limitation. 1881. 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 358 (P&H) : 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 237 (P&H) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 140. 1881.There must be averment in the complaint about the specific and active role about the commission of offence.V. 1881. 1881. 2002(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 481 (S.R's .Notice issued Respondent sought some more time . 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 456 (KARNATAKA) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (N.Different ink used in body and signature of cheque . 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 638 (KERALA) : 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 415 (KERALA) #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Person to whom blank cheque issued not examined though was seen in the Court premises . 138-.Dismissal for default .Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors. 138-. (Madanlal & Ors.Shivaprasad).)SC218 : 2003(1) AND WR 784 : 2003(1) BLJ 574 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 29 : 2003 BANK LJ 493 : 2003 CAL CRI LR 116 : 2003(1) CIVIL LJ 532 : 2002(112) COM CAS 611 : 2003(1) CRIMES 76 : 2003(1) EAST CRI C 22 :2003(1) JLJR 277 : 2003(24) OCR 503 : 2003(1) ORISSA LR 183 : 2003(1) PAT LJR 246 : 2003(1) RAJ CRI.Not available if notice is not addressed to correct address. 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 531 (KERALA) : 2003(2) KLT 367 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .) 880 : 2003(1) ALL CJ 580 : 2003(1) ALL IND CAS 965: 2003(1) AND LT (CRI.Dishonour of cheque ` 'Refer to drawer' .Death of payee within two days Complaint by L.Accused acquitted.) 750 : 2003(1) SCC 1 : 2002(6) SLT 272 : 2002(1) SRJ 470 : 2002(8) SCALE 266 : 2002(7) SUPREME 598 : 2003 SCC (CRI) 161 : AIR 2003 SC 182 #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.G...Antony Vs K.Returned as unclaimed .Cheque in the name of firm .Somashekar Vs S.Raghavan Nair). 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (RAJASTHAN) #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 90 (S. 141. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM.Directors . 138-.).However blank cheque alleged to be issued to third person and that the same is misused by the drawer Person through whom drawer came into contact with drawee and in whose presence money was advanced not examined .The liability to search and find out the legal heirs to pay the amount covered by the cheque to them within the period of 15 days prescribed is not obviously be read into a penal provision like S.Complainant .K. 138-. C 154 : 2004(2) RCR(CRL. 138. 138-. Act. again dishonoured and a fresh notice issued and complaint filed on failure to make payment .Means dishonour is on ground of insufficiency of funds. (Rajan Vs Sharafudheen).Cause of action to file complaint arose on failure to make payment on issuance of first notice and the same cannot be stopped to run by a promise to make payment . 138-.Drawer could not comply with the notice to make payment within 15 days ... 1881. 1881. 1881.Complaint .) : 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.) : 2003 CRI.C. 1881. (C.Disputed question of fact be decided during trial.Failure to make payment as promised . 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 06 (KERALA) #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Mere stating that Directors were responsible to the company for its conduct is not sufficient . (K. 142-.Dishonour of cheque ..) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ 838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0497 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.L. 1881. (Dassan Vs Ranimol).Dishonour of cheque . Vs Bhanwarlal)..Cheque against presented.. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI. (Shakti Bhakoo Vs Varun Khemka). 1881.G. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 615 (P&H) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 703 (P&H) #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (KERALA) : 2002(3) KLT 852 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 393 (A.) #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.All the partners cannot be proceed as accused on the assumption that liability of all the partners is joint as only those partners who are actually incharge of the firm and are responsible for the conduct of its business can be proceeded against as accused. 138-. 1881.. 1881.Compensation of Rs.No infirmity in the complaint. (Anilkumar Vs Shammy).Cheque amount Rs.). (Sunil Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.P. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 386 (P&H) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 700 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0172 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Anilkumar Vs Shammy).3. 138-. 1881.Amount was due to complainant by father of accused and not by accused .Dishonour of cheque .. (Sunil Kumar Tyagi Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.Complaint restored . subsequent putting of date in an undated cheque would not always amount to material alteration. 10.Eswar Rao & Anr.Holder has implied authority to put date on undated cheque and the same does not amount to material alteration ..Insertion of date on an undated cheque .Prosecution of accused for bouncing of cheque is not legal .However.357(3) Cr. 1881.357 Cr.Company . and in default of payment of compensation further simple imprisonment of sixty days. (Ashok Chaturvedi Vs Dr. (Ram Bhaj Jain Vs M/s Brar Rice & General Mills). Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd.(Mrs.C.Accused acquitted and his conviction and sentence set aside.P.Partnership firm . 138. 138-. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (KERALA) #4: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque not issued by accused to pay his father's debt but was taken by force from him by complainant . 138. 138-.Compensation ..When the case was not fixed for evidence of complainant. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (RAJASTHAN) #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 609 (P&H) : 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (P&H) #21: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. (Punjab State Coop.Dishonour of cheque . and adjourn the case.P. (Mahendra Agrawal Vs Gopi Ram Mahajan).) Nirmala Jaywant Patil & Anr.. must follow.Three lacs ..Execution of cheque admitted as such consideration thereunder is presumed . (Capital Syndicate Vs Jameela).No ground to quash proceedings.By itself does not amount to material alteration so as to render the cheque void.pursuing his case seriously and appearing on every hearing . 138-. a direction under S.Subsequent insertion of amount and name of payee without consent of drawer amounts to material alteration rendering the instrument void as in the absence of certainty regarding the amount and the payee at the time of issue of cheque the cheque cannot be said to be a valid one ...Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Prosecution of Chairman and Managing Director in absence of joining of Company as an accused . Magistrate could dispense with the appearance of complainant u/s 256 Cr.). 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (RAJASTHAN) #22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sentence of simple imprisonment of one month . 1881.Dismissal of complaint for non prosecution .Normally in a successful prosecution u/s 138. 138-.. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT .Pre-mature complaint Condition of expiry of 15 days after notice applies to taking cognizance and not to filing of complaint which can be kept pending as premature till prescribed time. 000 payable under S.). 1881.). 138-. Vs M/s Malerkotla Rice Mills & Ors. 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 626 (RAJASTHAN) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 527 (RAJASTHAN) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 651 (A..).Held. Vs Mangat Rai). 1881. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 87-.Dishonour of cheque .P. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . (Gundepaneni Nagabushanam Vs T. order of Magistrate restoring complaint is without jurisdiction. 1881. 141-. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 269 (KERALA) : 2002(3) KLT 852 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2002(3) CIVILL COURT CASES 142 (DELHI) #9: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . & Anr..There is presumption of service of notice sent under certificate of posting u/s 114 of Evidence Act.B.D. 1881. non signing of complaint does not go to root of the matter and is a mere technical irregularity. 138-.. (M/s C. 1881. 138-...Period from return of complaint to representation of complaint cannot be condoned as there is no provision either in Cr. (S.Complainant .Dishonour of cheque .) : 2002(3) KLT 218 : ILR 2003 KAR 4373 : 2003(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 9 : AIR 2002 SC 3014 : 2002 CRI LJ 3935 : 2002(4) REC CRI R 74 : 2002(4) CRIMES 75 : 2002(6) SCC 426 : 2002 SCC (CRI.. 138-. 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 204 (P&H) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 291 (P&H) : 2002(3) REC CRI R 250 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 626 (RAJASTHAN) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 527 (RAJASTHAN) #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Provision of S..`Debt or liability' . 1881.Interest warrant . 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 76 (MADRAS) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0253 #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.) : 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (S.Period mentioned for representation of complaint .Recall for further cross examination .).S.E. (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal). (Sant Lal Bhatia Vs City Credit and Leasing Company). (Ashok Chaturvedi Vs Dr. 2002(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 249 (S.).) : 2002 CRI LJ 2731 #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Return of complaint by Court having no territorial jurisdiction to be presented before proper Court . 1881. (Vijay & Anr. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H) #15: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..) 1342 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. or . (I. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 652 (BOMBAY) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 619 (BOMBAY) #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-. 138-.Complainant pursing complaint for two years Magistrate could adjourn the case and could dispense with personal attendance of complainant .).) : 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 375 (A.Dismissal for default . Consultancy Vs M/s Modi World Infotech). 1881. 138-. 138-.Held.Dishonour of cheque .Proceedings against petitioner quashed.Complaint .C. 1881.Setting aside order . 1881. 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 187 (ALLAHABAD) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0070 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.(Mrs.Efforts of Magistrate should be to dispose of case on merits instead of dismissing it in default Held.Sent as per registered post and under Certificate of Posting .Complaint by partnership firm .Cheque issued by guarantor to discharge liability of principal debtor ..P.P.69 Partnership Act is not applicable to proceedings u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 411 (S.Unsigned complaint .Charge framed .Petitioner resigned and he was not Director either on the date when the cheques were issued or when the cause of action arose ..C.Defect not noticed by Magistrate and complainant was examined u/s 200 on same day and his signatures were taken on verification and process was issued .I.Complaint u/s 138 is maintainable against guarantor. Vs Ramchandra & Anr.) Nirmala Jaywant Patil & Anr.Pre-mature complaint . 1881.CASES 652 (BOMBAY) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 619 (BOMBAY) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Period of pendency of complaint to be excluded . 138-.Trial still in progress . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Shankar Vs M/s. (Shri Sat Deo Jain Vs M/s Investment Point).Notice .Whether cheque was issued as security or discharge of liability is a question of fact to be decided by trial Court.C. 138-.138 apply where interest warrant is dishonoured. 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 218 (A.P. under the circumstances Magistrate was wholly unjustified in dismissing the complaint for want of prosecution.Application allowed.)... (Gurcharan Singh Vs State of U.Cheque dishonoured . 1881.It can await maturity or be returned to the complaint for filing later and its mere presentation at an early date need not necessarily render the complaint liable to be dismissed or confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed.Amman Steel Corporation). 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 473 (BOMBAY) : 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 343 (BOMBAY) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Director .C. Ltd Vs Beena Shabeer & Anr. 138-. (Mahendra Agrawal Vs Gopi Ram Mahajan).S. 138-.P. (S. 138-. 1881.Defects in complaint .It is for the Directors to establish during trial that they are not responsible for the day to day business of the company. 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 550 (DELHI) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 126 (DELHI) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.List of witnesses . (S. (Rayala Sima Agro Enterprises & Ors.G.Subramaniam & Ors.). complaint is not only defective but also there is total non-applicaton of mind by Magistrate . (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal).. 1881.This fact mentioned in notice ..Company .Court can grant permission to rectify the same.5.Brothers).P. (Smt.P.) #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (KARNATAKA) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 41 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0496 #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Summoning order passed only on the basis of cheque issued earlier without taking note of the fact that a different cheque was introduced into evidence .P.Sole proprietorship firm .Sentence of fine Quantum .95 lacs payable to the complainant and Rs. 138-. 1881. complaint can be filed by any person connected with company may be its Director or Manager or any other person so authorised. on which complaint based not produced . 138-.5 lacs and fine imposed Rs. new cheque produced . 138-. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (A.Proprietor was the complainant company .Held. Ltd.to be appropriated to the State and in default accused to undergo imprisonment for a period of three months.Since cheque is the very basis of complaint and when very foundation has not been properly laid by giving correct number of cheque.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (A. 138-. 1881. (Holiyappa K.Complaint .Complaint disclosing that A-2 issued cheque on behalf of A-1 company with the consent and knowledge of the directors It cannot be held that there is no accusation against the Directors of the Company . (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal).Complaint can either be filed by proprietorship firm through its proprietor or by proprietor in his individual capacity.C.Subramaniam & Ors.Four cheques clubbed in one complaint Complaint not to be quashed . 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 367 (KARNATAKA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT .1.Bhavani Vs D. 000/.New check issued on taking back cheque issued earlier .In proof of complaint. (M/s Bedi Sons Steels & Wires Vs M/s B. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 23 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 41 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0496 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..) #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs NCT of Delhi & Ors.). 138-.Cheque issued earlier.A defect which goes to the root of the matter. & Anr.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 460 (A.Fine enhanced to Rs.P. 1881. complainant or payee of cheque. 000/. (M/s EITA India Ltd.P..Dishonour of cheque ..Patil alias Ajjappa Vs Lokappa). 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Doddarangaiah & Anr. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (A.P. Vs Vasavi Cotton Traders).Not a lacuna as there is only one witness in such cases viz. cannot be allowed to amended. 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 651 (A.G. complaint itself becomes not maintainable.P.2.15.) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (A.) #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.Complaint based on cheque issued earlier . 1881.P. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Directors . (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal)...Contention that A-5 was not the Director of the company by the date cheques were issued . 138-.This is not a mere technical defect which can be allowed to be amended .Defects in the format of complaint . Vs Gujarat Agro Industries Corpn. 138-... 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H) #25: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.It is a question of fact to be decided by trial Court after recording evidence. Vs Vasavi Cotton Traders).Brothers).Proprietorship concern .. 1881..3 lacs out of which Rs. (M/s Bedi Sons Steels & Wires Vs M/s B.Limitation Act.Omission .Cheque amount Rs. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It is not such a defect which goes to the root of the matter. . of Delhi).Criminal liability of drawer is not obliterated by merger of companies. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 185 (A.Cheque was to be sent to Varanasi for collection purpose but the encashment had to take place at Salem .Cheque amount was to be paid at Salem ..Complaint is to be filed within one month from the expiry .Notice . 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Authorisation ..Prabhu Vs Sangam Corporation (Finance and Investment).Not given within 15 days of intimation of dishonour of cheque . 138-.Plea of non service of notice . 1881. are not attracted. cause of action wholly arose at Salem and no part of cause of action arose at Varanasi Allahabad High Court has no jurisdiction to stay the complaint filed at Salem.Muthye Vs State).P. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 145 (ALLAHABAD) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0545 #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..C. 138-. 138-.Proceedings u/s 138 are under the Negotiable Instruments Act which is a self contained special law .) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. may be its director or manager or any other person. 138.Delay cannot be condoned either u/s 5 Limitation Act or u/s 473 Cr.P.Notice . 1881. 1881. Vs N. (Om Prakash Vs State of U.Prabhu Vs Sangam Corporation (Finance and Investment).Complaint can be filed by any person connected with the company.P.P. it is at the stage while trial is taking place.This fact can only be decided during trial of case.Prabhu Vs Sangam Corporation (Finance and Investment).) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (C. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 280 (H.V. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 185 (A. Bangalore). 138-.) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..R's allowed to be brought on record as financial benefit has accrued by order of conviction.Complainant can be either the proprietor or any other person who is authorised specifically in regard thereto. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 204 (DELHI) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 190 (DELHI) #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138-. (C.A person can represent the corporate even on an authorisation letter and it does not require any supporting resolution to be passed by the concern. (M/s.Eita India Ltd. 1881. 138-.Complaint filed by Manager Authority .Sole proprietor happened to be a company .Refusal . 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (KARNATAKA) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0421 #10: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Jurisdiction . 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 361 (P&H) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0049 #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Y.P.Manager . 1881.Sole proprietorship concern .. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0127 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.T. 1881. so authorised by the company.Partnership firm .Venkata Reddy Vs M/s Jagadamba Enterprises).Dishonour of cheque . 1881..Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Mohinder Dutt Sharma Vs Bhagat Ram).Complainant company ceased to exist on its merger with another company .Not a ground to quash criminal proceedings against drawer .. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0127 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Complaint quashed. (Y.Partnership firm .) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 297 (H. & Ors.15 days time to make payment will start on the next date of refusal . who can represent the company in legal proceedings.Provisions of other Acts. 1881. Bangalore).P. 142-.Complaint filed by Manager . 1881.Company ... 1881. 138-. Bangalore). 138-..Notice .Death of complainant during pendency of revision .). 138-.Venkata Reddy Vs M/s Jagadamba Enterprises).When Manager stated that he is the Manager of the partnership firm and is authorised to do so at the earliest stage the Court need not doubt his authorisation or capacity If at all the same is required to be considered.. (S. (C.Dishonour of cheque .L.At the time of filing complaint it is not required to be disclosed that he is authorised to do so or produce any authorisation.Held. (Urjit Singh Vs State of Punjab). 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0127 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque signed by petitioner at Salem . (Sannidhi Agencies Vs Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited).C. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 187 (DELHI) #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Revision against conviction . like the Indian Partnership Act.Proprietary concern . ..Patil alias Ajjappa Vs Lokappa).) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 676 (A.Complaint cannot be quashed . Vs Karuthuru Ravendra). held. Vs Raj Kumar Aggarwal).Obligation as required u/s 141 is discharged ..4000/.2 : 2002(2) ISJ (BANKING) 0321 : 2002 CRI LJ 3255 : 2002(4) CRIMES 0289 : 2002(3) REC CRI R 213 : 2002(4) CRI LJ 3255 #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 370 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 505 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0083 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Authorisation can be express or implied and the implicity has to be inferred from the circumstances of the case and the things spoken or written. 138-. 1881. (Sham Lal.However. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (P&H) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (P&H) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (The Waterbase Ltd.. 1881..Company . 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 370 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 505 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0083 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.S.Filed by Assistant Manager of Credit Control . & Ors.. 138-.) #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Offence. 1881.S. petitioners are entitled to prove that offence was committed without their knowledge during trial. validly presented. 138-.Another Director cannot be prosecuted in absence of an averment that the said director was also responsible for the conduct and business of the company Proceedings quashed.Complaint.It is for a particular director to show that he was not incharge of affairs of company when offence alleged was committed. (Hotline Shares and Securities Ltd.Proceedings will abate . (Holiyappa K. Vs Dinesh Ganeshmal Shah). (Sat Pal Vs State of Punjab)..Dishonour of cheque .I.Complaint . (M/s. 1881.Not presented personally by complainant but presented by his Advocate .of 15 days from the refusal of the notice.Dishonour of cheque . G. 142-.Tata Finance Ltd. 138-. 138-.Auto Industries Pvt. 1881. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (A.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Fourwheel Motors Pvt. Ltd.Company . & Ors.P. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 393 (KERALA) : AIR 2003 KANT HCR 75 N : 2002(3) ICC 633 : 2002(3) REC CIV R 763. 141-. Vs Dinesh Ganeshmal Shah). G.Cannot be dismissed on such technical ground that it does not state cause of action.. Ltd. Vs Raj Kumar Aggarwal). & Ors.Chhabra. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504 #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0348 . Director.Company . by `T' not covered by Act.Accused convicted and sentenced to one year RI and a fine of Rs.Directors and General Manager Petitioners alleged to be responsible for the conduct of the business of the company . 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504 #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . (Hotline Shares and Securities Ltd. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 367 (KARNATAKA) #14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504 #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Where allegations made against directors prima facie constitute offence.)..Complaint .Even assuming connivance between `E' and `T' cognizance cannot be taken against `T' .Prosecution against company and Managing Director who signed the cheque Death of Managing Director .Complaint .During revision accused paid the amount of cheque and fine . if any.Dishonour of cheque .Cheque issued by `E' and not by `T' . (Sham Lal.C...Accused remained in custody for 18 days . 1881. or the ordinary course of dealing. (Hotline Shares and Securities Ltd. 1881. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 689 (RAJASTHAN) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque issued by company dishonoured .Offence under section 138 N.Auto Industries Pvt. 138-. & Anr. (S.S. Director Vs M/s Gontermann Peipers (India) Limited). 1881. Vs Dinesh Ganeshmal Shah).Company . complaint is maintainable . (Rejikumar Vs Sukumaran). 138-...Sentence reduced to already undergone. 138.P. Act is made out only if cheque is dishonoured for want of funds in the account and not for the reason that signatures differed.Legal heirs cannot be prosecuted. Director. 138-.Death of accused during trial . Vs J. 138.Directors . even if initially there is no authority. & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .C.. 138-. 138-.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 2002 CRI LJ 266 : 2002 SCC (CRI) 121 : RLW 2002(1) SC 117 : 2002(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 234 : 2002(1) JCC 15 : 2002(1) REC CRI R 318 : 2001(4) CTC 749 : AIR 2002 SC 182 : 2002(1) ALT CRI.. not known' . 3793 : 2002(1) SCC 234 : 2002(1) CRIMES 156 (SC) : 2001 DCR 580 (SC) : 2001 DGLS 1417 : 2002 ALL MR 230 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P.C. & Anr.As the complainant had engaged a counsel and was pursing the complaint bona fide as such he cannot be punished for inaction or omission of Advocate . rectify that defect .C.C. (Fakirappa Vs Shiddalingappa & Anr.M. at any stage. 3793 : 2002(1) SCC 234 : 2002(1) CRIMES 156 (SC) : 2001 DCR 580 (SC) : 2001 DGLS 1417 : 2002 ALL MR 230 #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Pleading .Ltd. (M/s M.Vicarious liability Accused opened account on behalf of Company and issued cheque . 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S. & Anr.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S.By a person who is incharge or responsible to the Company .`Stop payment' .Order of dismissal set aside . 3793 : 2002(1) SCC 234 : 2002(1) CRIMES 156 (SC) : 2001 DCR 580 (SC) : 2001 DGLS 1417 : 2002 ALL MR 230 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Purchase of vehicle .Restoration . an accused can prove that `stop payment' was not due to insufficiency or paucity of funds but payment was stopped because of other valid causes including that there was no existing debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque then offence u/s 138 is not made out. 1881. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. 230 : 2001 AIR SCW 4973 : ILR 2002 KAR. 230 : 2001 AIR SCW 4973 : ILR 2002 KAR.Ltd.Debt or liability Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no debt or liability .Complainant could not appear because he was not informed of the date by his counsel .Ltd. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 17 (GUJARAT) . (M/s M.Held. & Anr. 138-. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P.`Debt or liability' .) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 2002 CRI LJ 266 : 2002 SCC (CRI) 121 : RLW 2002(1) SC 117 : 2002(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 234 : 2002(1) JCC 15 : 2002(1) REC CRI R 318 : 2001(4) CTC 749 : AIR 2002 SC 182 : 2002(1) ALT CRI.M.Advance paid as per cheque .Company . & Anr. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P.At this stage Court cannot go into merits and/or come to a conclusion that there is no existing debt or liability.Cheque dishonoured .Dismissal for default .).M.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S.C.T.Ltd.C. still the Company can. (M/s M. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S.It has to be taken as deemed service.M.. 1881. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 275 (KARNATAKA) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.At a subsequent stage the Company can send a person who is competent to represent the Company.. 1881. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S. 1881. & Anr.. (Urjit Singh Vs State of Punjab). (M/s M.).Returned with postal endorsement 'Left.Ltd. 3793 : 2002(1) SCC 234 : 2002(1) CRIMES 156 (SC) : 2001 DCR 580 (SC) : 2001 DGLS 1417 : 2002 ALL MR 230 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.138 of the Act as there is no debt or liability.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 2002 CRI LJ 266 : 2002 SCC (CRI) 121 : RLW 2002(1) SC 117 : 2002(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 234 : 2002(1) JCC 15 : 2002(1) REC CRI R 318 : 2001(4) CTC 749 : AIR 2002 SC 182 : 2002(1) ALT CRI.Quashing .Ltd. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 648 (JHARKHAND) #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Ltd.C.#24: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.An offence is made out However.Whether authorisation must be on the date or a subsequent authorisation can validate the complaint? .It shows that accused is prima facie responsible for the liability .C. 138-.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S. & Anr. 1881.Does not amount to commission of an offence under S.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S.Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no averment in the complaint that accused was incharge and responsible to the company.. 1881.C.Complaint . 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 361 (P&H) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0049 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .).Courts are to look into the matter with justice oriented approach.).C. 138-.).Vehicle not sold .T. 1881. & Anr. 230 : 2001 AIR SCW 4973 : ILR 2002 KAR..The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability is on the respondents.T. 138-.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 2002 CRI LJ 266 : 2002 SCC (CRI) 121 : RLW 2002(1) SC 117 : 2002(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 234 : 2002(1) JCC 15 : 2002(1) REC CRI R 318 : 2001(4) CTC 749 : AIR 2002 SC 182 : 2002(1) ALT CRI. (Ratanlal Gulabchand Gupta Vs Sahara Sev Gruh Udyog Bhandar).There is no requirement that the complainant must allege in the complaint that there is a subsisting liability .Ltd. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S.T. (Joshi Topno alias Joshi Amrit Topno Vs The State of Bihar & Ors.C.. 138-.). 230 : 2001 AIR SCW 4973 : ILR 2002 KAR.C. 1881. C. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .In absence of list of witnesses summons against accused will not be issued Provision of S.204(2) is mandatory in nature commanding absolute compliance. 1881. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S. (Fakirappa Vs Shiddalingappa & Anr. 138-..) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 2002 CRI LJ 266 : 2002 SCC (CRI) 121 : RLW 2002(1) SC 117 : 2002(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 234 : 2002(1) JCC 15 : 2002(1) REC CRI R 318 : 2001(4) CTC 749 : AIR 2002 SC 182 : 2002(1) ALT CRI. (Krishnakumar Menon Vs Neoteric Informatique Pvt.Proceedings against company quashed.).C. (H.Notice . 2002(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 476 (S.) : 2002 CRI LR 1034 : 2002(7) SCC 541 #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Territorial jurisdiction . 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 275 (KARNATAKA) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT .Complaint .No such permission can even be granted by High Court by taking recourse to its inherent powers under S. 138-.Oral intimation .) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 625 (S.Notice Sufficient of service of notice . 138-...C. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0094 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. & Anr..Compounding of offence .).N.M..Not a demand notice There has to be a written notice. (Prakashchandra Chaudhary Vs State of Madhya Pradesh). 1881.482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Offence u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act is not compoundable . 1881.Ltd. Kerala High Court has no jurisdiction to quash the proceedings pending in other State.Proceedings cannot be quashed on ground of insufficiency of service of notice.. 138-. employee of company is drawer of cheque in his individual capacity . alone can continue to represent the company till the end of the proceedings.C.Held. 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 528 (KERALA) : 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque ..Ltd.Part of cause of action arose in Kerala State ..C. 1881. it would not save from an action u/s 138 of the Act.Notice is valid .J.#7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .List of witnesses .N.Complaint filed in Court at Mumbai .No Magistrate shall insist that the particular person.Mavla).Kapoor).N. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 93 (M. 138-.Hari Vs A.P. (Vinod Tanna Vs Zaheer Siddiqui).`Cause of action' arises only when notice is issued and payment is not made . 138-. whose statement was taken on oath at the first instance. 138-.Karan Traders).. 1881. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (DELHI) #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Fakirappa Vs Shiddalingappa & Anr.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0567 #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Kitex Garments Limited Vs Ajay Koushik Prop. 230 : 2001 AIR SCW 4973 : ILR 2002 KAR. 1881.Notice given when cheque was dishonoured for the second time . 1881.Hari Vs A.) : 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (S. 138-. 138-.Ltd. 1881.'Stop payment' .Complaint . when question is yet to be decided by trial Court. (H.. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0094 #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Mavla). (M/s M. & Anr.Question is to be decided on basis of evidence led during trial and not at initial stage .T.J.Oral intimation was given when cheque was dishonoured for the first time .) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S.Proceedings quashed. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 51 (MADRAS) : 2001(4) REC CRI R 677 : 2002(1) KLT 17 (SN) #8: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 275 (KARNATAKA) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 3793 : 2002(1) SCC 234 : 2002(1) CRIMES 156 (SC) : 2001 DCR 580 (SC) : 2001 DGLS 1417 : 2002 ALL MR 230 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured .Merely because the drawer of the cheque issued notice to the drawee or to the bank for stopping payment. 138-.Employee of company issued cheque in his individual capacity to discharge liability of company .Signatures on cheque incomplete .C.Oral intimation is not demand notice as there has to be a written notice.). (Raj Chawla Vs P.).Held. Magistrate cannot take cognizance on police report. 1881.Again requested to represent the cheque .Surjeet Udyog.Ramesh Vs Basanth Kumar Patil).Raibhagi Firm).. 138-.Notice .Second cheque issued as first cheque alleged to be lost . 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 662 (P&H) . 138-.Complaint does not ipso facto terminate or abate upon death of complainant . 1881. (Harsukhbhai Lakshmanbhai Vs State of Gujarat).R. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 221 (GUJARAT) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 286 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0536 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Police report . 770 #25: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Where complainant is dead.Ltd.Issued after five months of receipt of information from Bank .A partner though not signatory to the cheque yet is liable for the offence of dishonour of cheque if he is responsible for the business of the partnership firm. 1881. (Sanjay Garg Vs Som Nath Singla). 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 135 (KARNATAKA) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. CAS..Jindal Cotton Factory Vs M/s. 138-. 138-. 138-.Second notice issued . (Jimmy Jahangir Madan Vs Mrs.Regular commercial transaction .Negotiable Instruments Act. (Archana Publication Pvt.Thereafter first cheque presented which was returned with endorsement `Payment stopped' .Second cheque got encashed .Notice is not valid. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0052 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 539 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0200 : (2003)115 COM. 1881. Vs State of Delhi).Payment stopped . 138-.Notice .In notice reason for return of cheque mentioned `Insufficient funds' . (Nemichand Swaroopchand Shaha Vs M/s T..Bolly Cariyappa Hindley (Deceased) by L.Jamuna Prakash). 1881. (Mukesh Aggarwal Vs State).Question whether sworn statement of power of attorney can be recorded .Death of .138(b) of the Act Compliant and summoning order quashed.Dishonour of cheque .Question not decided.Cheque presented and again dishonoured . (Nityanand Vs Smt. (Sanjay Garg Vs Som Nath Singla).Offence u/s 138 is made out and not an offence of cheating under Sections 415 and 420 IPC.D. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.3 was incharge of and was responsible to the partnership firm for conduct of its business or that she had consented or connived to the commission of said offence nor there is an evidence to this effect .Partnership firm . 1881.Three notices . Kotkapura)... 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0052 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Failure to make payment ..Complainant .Complaint not legally maintainable. agent or power-of-attorney holder can be permitted to prosecute complaint.No allegation in complaint that accused No. 1881.Non mention of cheque number .Third notice issued . 138. (M/s.Complaint filed . 1881.H.Prosecution launched on basis of first cheque quashed Facts show that complainant filed the complaint with mala fide intention to harass the accused..Partnership firm .Rs.Raibhagi Firm).Held. 1881. if no complaint is filed on the first cause of action the payee is disentitled to create another cause of action to file a complaint for the purpose of launching a prosecution on it .Not fatal when only one cheque is issued and all other particulars are furnished. 138-..Notice is clearly beyond the time fixed under S. 142-.. his legal representative.Notice .Summoning order against such partner quashed. 138-.Power of attorney holder . (S.Is competent to present the complaint .H. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 327 (DELHI) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0574 : 2001(7) AD (DELHI) 735 : 2002(1) JCC 134 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Cheque presented and again dishonoured . 1881.Cognizance can only be taken upon a complaint . 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0210 #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice . 1881.In response to the first notice petitioner requested to represent the cheque . 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 286 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0536 #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Nemichand Swaroopchand Shaha Vs M/s T.. ).P.Manjunath Vs L. 138-. alter the nature or the extent of the sentence. each transaction under each invoice being separate. 1881.6. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 18 (MADRAS) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0343 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Veluchamy). issue of cheque in discharge of the debt under the said invoice constitute a separate offence .Accused found guilty and fine of Rs.Industries Limited & Anr.. but not so as to enhance the same.Appeal against .C.. 138-.Notice dated 13.Specific allegation that he is also looking after the affairs of the company .Bar of expiry of 15 days is for taking cognizance .11.. 1881. 138. 138-.Filed prior to expiry of 15 days of notice period ..5.).Dishonour of cheque ..If amount of fine recovered Rs.Partners who are not incharge of the firm and are not responsible for the conduct of its business are not liable and cannot be proceeded against.One notice issued . 1881. 1881. Vs M/s Malerkotla Rice Mills)..Hem Lata Gupta Vs State of U.C.Corrected four times to extend its validity .Period of validity of cheque would commence from last corrected date and not when cheque was originally drawn..Date of cheque .357(1)(b) Cr.. (Smt.Suresh).Partnership firm .60..10 complaints limiting three cheques per each complaint filed .C. accountant who is responsible to the company for the conduct of its business can be prosecuted. 138-.If Magistrate is of opinion that accused should receive a punishment more severe than what he is empowered to inflict then he can take recourse to S. 000/. 138-. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 64 (KARNATAKA) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Can impose a maximum fine of Rs. (Mohammad Ilyas Ahamed Vs Abdul Subhan). (S.Order is valid in view of S.#3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.58.Company .Dismissal in default . 138-. 138-.Held. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 663 (A.Manjunath Vs L.Cheques issued under various invoices . (Punjab State Coop.6. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. 1881.Held. 141-. 138.Proceedings . (S. (S.Magistrate First Class . 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 93 (KARNATAKA) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 000/.Suresh).P.). 1881.Ramaiah Vs Ramanika Silks (P) Ltd.. 1881.Suresh).P. 000/. 1881.55. 141-.Trial by Chief Judicial Magistrate .imposed and in default accused to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment ..1998 .Power of attorney holder ..325 of Cr.) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 655 (A. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 708 (A. order of Chief Judicial Magistrate in imposing the fine is valid.1998 complaint filed on 26. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 680 (ALLAHABAD) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0060 #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Conviction .Held.30 cheques .There is nothing illegal in having filed ten different complaints. 000/.Fine of Rs.). Vs J.P.Suresh).Manjunath Vs L. 1881. (Rengammal and Co.High Court can restore the complaint in exercise of its power u/s 482 Cr.1998 and cognizance taken on 18. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (P&H) #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured for the reason that it does not bear the signature of Managing Director in addition to Finance Manager of the Company and that it does not bear the seal of the Company .Accountant .P. (Dev Vs State of A.Complaint cannot be dismissed merely on this ground. & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. Vs K.Complaint .Manjunath Vs L.Cheque amount Rs.K. and submit proceedings to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.60.out of that to be paid to the complainant . 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 64 (KARNATAKA) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Appellate Court with or without altering the finding. (S. (M.Complaint can be filed by power of attorney holder of payee. 000/. 1881..P.) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Magistrate cannot restore complaint as he becomes functus officio after passing the dismissal order .P.) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 64 (KARNATAKA) #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.and in default accused to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment .P.) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 553 (A.No case is made out for offence .. 1881. 138-. 138-. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 32 (KARNATAKA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0773 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.P. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 64 (KARNATAKA) #12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (City Automobiles & Anr. Cheque can be presented again within the permitted period . 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (S.. 1881. 138-.`Debt or liability' .C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL .. it is not open to claim that the cheque was not issued towards amount due.) 955 #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0664 : 2001(3) RCR(CRI) 512 : AIR 2001 SC 2625 : 2001(3) KLT 45 : 2001(3) CTC 309 : 2001 SCC(CRI.).Intimation to drawee before presentation of cheque . (Vinod Tanna Vs Zaheer Siddiqui).Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.Having issued the cheque.C. 1881.C.). 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (S..Issued u/s 434 Companies Act within 15 days of the information from the Bank regarding return of cheque drawn by a company as unpaid .C. (Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd.C. 1881. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Entry Tax. Vs State (Govt.Notice . 138-.C.).) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 270 (S.). 1881. 1881. 138-. (Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 270 (S. 138-. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (S.Dishonour of cheque . 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.If cheque bounced again prosecution can be launched on the basis of second notice within 15 days.Amounts to a notice u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (S. Hospet).) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0664 : 2001(3) RCR(CRI) 512 : AIR 2001 SC 2625 : 2001(3) KLT 45 : 2001(3) CTC 309 : 2001 SCC(CRI. Vs State (Govt.`Stop payment' . 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (S..).Offence is committed without reference to balance in the account whether sufficient to honour the cheque or not .Non presentation of cheque within six months Absolves the person issuing the cheque of his criminal liability..Quashing of complaint Question whether petitioners had issued blank cheques or whether those were written by them or those were written beyond their instructions by respondent or whether amount due is lesser than the amount endorsed on . (Managing Director.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0307 : 2001(3) SCC 609 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 834 : 2001(2) AD (SC) 330 : AIR 2001 SC 1161 : 2001(42) ACC 651 : 2001(3) MAH LJ 1 : JT 2001(3) SC 114 : 2001 CRI LJ 1250 : 2001(2) KLT 148 (SC) #23: SUPREME COURT ON INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (S.C.. & Ors. 1881. Vs Jayaswals Neco Ltd. 138-..Provisions of S. Vs Jayaswals Neco Ltd. (Vinod Tanna Vs Zaheer Siddiqui)..Presentation of cheque within six months Should be at the bank on which the cheque is drawn. 138-. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 217 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 #21: SUPREME COURT ON INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr.These objections are to be taken at the trial . (M/s Uniplas India Ltd.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 270 (S.138 to be interpreted strictly.. 138-. of NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 1881.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0307 : 2001(3) SCC 609 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 834 : 2001(2) AD (SC) 330 : AIR 2001 SC 1161 : 2001(42) ACC 651 : 2001(3) MAH LJ 1 : JT 2001(3) SC 114 : 2001 CRI LJ 1250 : 2001(2) KLT 148 (SC) #22: SUPREME COURT ON INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . (M/s Uniplas India Ltd. 1881. 1881. & Ors.C.) 955 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.`Post dated' cheque . 138-.Becomes a cheque only on the date written on the cheque.C.'Account operation jointly. other Director signature required' . (Vinod Tanna Vs Zaheer Siddiqui).) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 610 (S.C. (Shri Ishar Alloy Steels Ltd.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0307 : 2001(3) SCC 609 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 834 : 2001(2) AD (SC) 330 : AIR 2001 SC 1161 : 2001(42) ACC 651 : 2001(3) MAH LJ 1 : JT 2001(3) SC 114 : 2001 CRI LJ 1250 : 2001(2) KLT 148 (SC) #24: SUPREME COURT ON INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Jayaswals Neco Ltd. Vs Jayaswals Neco Ltd.Issued but not within 15 days .) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 610 (S.This is also irrespective of amount of cheque being less or more than the amount arranged to be paid from the account by an agreement with the bank..quashed. (Vinod Tanna Vs Zaheer Siddiqui). 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 242 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0535 #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Offence u/s 138 is made out. 1881.).Notice . Unless contrary is proved the holder of a negotiable instrument shall be presumed to be a holder in due course. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (KARNATAKA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0403 : 2001(3) RCR(CRL. Vs M/s Puttukola Properties Ltd.Cheque returned with this endorsement .Sleeping partner .K.Notice . dismissed .C. Vs Samala Mareppa & Sons).1994 . 1881.Mohammed).) : 2001(2) MPLJ 488 : 2001(II) MPJR 68 : 2001(3) REC CRI R 675 : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0524 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (Anil Kumar Haritwal Vs Sant Prakash Gupta). (Deepa Finance Corporation Vs A. 1881.) : 2001(4) MAH LJ 895 : AIR 2001 SC 3641 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 245 : S.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0307 : 2001(3) SCC 609 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 834 : 2001(2) AD (SC) 330 : AIR 2001 SC 1161 : 2001(42) ACC 651 : 2001(3) MAH LJ 1 : JT 2001(3) SC 114 : 2001 CRI LJ 1250 : 2001(2) KLT 148 (SC) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. ON DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES 70 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-.C.). mere statement that the cheque was issued by A for and on behalf of B & C is not sufficient to give the cause of action for a complaint u/s 138 of the Act.C.) 328 #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.No case is made out against the accused for the offence u/s 138 of the Act. 138-. 1881.Complaint .1. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 79 (KERALA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0638 : 2001(2) KLT 503 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 150 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. & Ors. 138-.C. Yes.C.P. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (M.. 138.. 138-..P. 138-.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 298 (S.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 241 (S.Held. 1881.Cheque dishonoured . 1881. 1881.Shakti Bhakoo Vs M/s Raj Lakshmi Mills (Regd. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (S.)). & Anr. for quashing complaint and summoning order .Partnership . 138. (Thirumala Agencies & Anr.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 480 (S. (Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 241 (S.Petition for discharge of sleeping partner u/s 245(2) Cr. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 382 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0087 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.'A holder in due course' ..1.).C. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0244 #2: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 325 (S.C. Vs IMC Ltd.Not a person incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business .Revision also dismissed by Sessions Court .Whether a cheque within the meaning of S..Account not in existence by the date on which the cheque was issued .C.C.P.`Pay Order' .) #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 50-. 1881.. (Smt.Can be proceeded against only if he was at the time of commission of the offence was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company .. (Hiten Sagar & Anr.138 of the Act? . 138-. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 447 (P&H) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. ON DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES 70 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.A director cannot be proceed against merely for the reason that he happens to be a director of the company. & Ors.).C.Dishonour of cheque .1994 Intimation given to payee on 17.270 (S.Petition u/s 482 Cr. 1881.In absence of any document creating the liability of B & C in favour of A.Prosecution against sleeping partner quashed.)..Cheque issued by A in discharge of liability of B & C . (M/s Munoth Investments Ltd.Cheque dishonoured on 13. mentioning the order of Magistrate or Sessions Judge in the .) : 2001(4) MAH LJ 895 : AIR 2001 SC 3641 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 245 : S. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (S. (Kumari Vs Sankara Raman). (Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd.Sleeping partner . 138-..Held. 138-.Company .Fifteen days period for sending notice of demand is to be counted from the receipt of information from the Bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid.No mention of order of Magistrate or Sessions Judge made in the petition as those orders were not challenged in the petition ..By power of attorney holder Complaint can be lodged by power of attorney holder.Means a person who for consideration became the possessor of a cheque if payable to bearer before the amount became payable .Amounts to dishonesty as such comes within the definition of the provision.Director .`Account closed' . 138-.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Cause of action arises after expiry of 15 days of service of notice. Vs State & Ors. Vs B.Aggarwal & Sons Ltd.Means any kind of liability of the drawer and not any other's liability. 138-. 1881.).Dishonour of cheque . (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd.Magistrate to stay complaint case and call for a report from police . 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0344 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Smt. does not absolve accused drawer of liability of criminal offence..`Stop payment' . (The Yamakanamardi Urban Co-operative Credit Society Limited Vs Raju Basavantrao Bhosale). 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KARNATAKA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0764 #12: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Ltd. 138-.Offence is committed Insufficiency of funds when cheque was presented need not to be proved. 1881.Blank cheque . Vs IMC Ltd.Pre-mature complaint . (Ishwar Rama Gunaga Vs Ramdas Anant Prabhu). 1881. will apply.C.Default in appearance of complaint was primarily on account of wrong noting of date . & Anr.427 Cr.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.. 138-. Vs B.)). 138-. (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs B.). 1881.Any liability.)..P.Sentence will run concurrently as it is a single transaction of `Khata' account .Cheque issued towards discharge of loan . (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd.Accused can rebut the presumption by proving otherwise.Contention of accused that he issued a blank cheque which was used by complainant and was not issued in discharge of liability .Aggarwal & Sons Ltd.All dishonoured .. (Manisha Trading Pvt.Seven cheques .).. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (M.Aggarwal & Sons Ltd. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (KARNATAKA) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held. unless the payee.. 1881. this contention cannot be raised in revision. (Ram Raghav Chaturvedi Vs State of Madhya Pradesh).). (Peter Mathew Vs Betty John).P.Compounding of offence There is no power to compound an offence punishable under S. 1881. (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. 138-.D.Provisions of S.S.. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0344 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act... (Hiten Sagar & Anr. 138-.) #15: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dismissal for default . (M/s A. 1881. 1881. 1881.210 Cr.M.12.1994 and complaint filed on 12.Presumption is that cheque was issued for discharge in whole or in part of a debt or liability .. Vs B.`Debt or liability' .C. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0244 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Aggarwal & Sons Ltd. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 634 (KERALA) .) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .D. 138-. 138-. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (DELHI) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0344 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint case and police case over same matter .138. is not attracted where complaint is u/s 138 NI Act as cognizance of offence u/s 138 NI Act can only be taken on a complaint filed by payee.Conviction in all complaints .).D.D.12. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0344 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. the drawer and the original debtor entered into any agreement to that effect. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 447 (P&H) #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.petition not fatal.Even if there is a civil dispute between the parties and the accused have issued a cheque for the payment of the amount in question and if the cheque is dishonoured it will make an offence under S. 1881.Fact that same loan liability subsequently became subject matter of arbitration by Registrar and that award was passed against accused drawer..Complaint restored to its original number.1994 before expiry of 15 days of service of notice Complaint dismissed .Notice served on 2.P.Seven complaints .).Shakti Bhakoo Vs M/s Raj Lakshmi Mills (Regd.P. 138-. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 159 (S.Presumption is rebuttable . 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 621 (S.. body or reputation of the complainant. 138.Denial by accused is not sufficient to shift the burden on complainant . 138. 1881.C.. 1881. ON DISHONOUR OF CHQUES 36 : 2001(1) KLT 528 : 2001 DCR 198 : 2001 CCR 159 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab & Sind Bank).Complaint filed thereafter is maintainable as the case of the accused is that he had not received the earlier notice. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 698 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0573 #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.420 IPC can be launched .J.).Order set aside . 138-.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (BOMBAY) : 1999 .R 431 : 2001(2) GLR 1770 : 2001(3) ALL INDIA CRI LR 88 : 2001(1) CRIMES 198 : 2001 CRI LJ 972 : 2001(1) JCC 106 : S. Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd..Beena Vs Muniyappan).Sent by registered post .) ISJ (BANKING) 0762 #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.) : AIR 2001 SC 676 : 2000(1) REC CRI R 646 : 2001(6) SCC 463 : 2001(1) U.2001 (SUPP.C.Offence of cheating will be made out if it is established that accused had intention to cheat at the time of issuance of cheque and dishonour of cheque caused damage to mind. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A. 138-.Prosecution u/s 138 NI Act and also under S.Is not a cheque Dishonour of pay order . 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 571 (BOMBAY) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0244 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 1999 . 1881. 'received one empty envelope without any content in it.Provision is not attracted. merits restoration.).) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act..Fine equivalent to amount of cheque imposed . 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (BOMBAY) : 1999 .Process issued against both accused . (Bipin J. (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab & Sind Bank).Complainant sending fresh notice after representation of cheque . 139.) ISJ (BANKING) 0762 #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.M. (Smt.5000/.).Jagadish & Anr.`Notice' .P. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78 #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT .) 0014 : 2001 DCR 47 (SC) : 2001 CRI..P. 138.N.Magistrate can however award compensation to any extent when sentence of fine is not imposed.CR.138 will be attracted in case of dishonour.C.Restoration of complaint can be ordered by High Court . 1881. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 326 (A. (K.Company .C. if any' . Vs IMC Ltd. 632 #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (BOMBAY) : 2001(2) MH. Vs M/s Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd. 1881. 5.Magistrate not competent to impose fine exceeding Rs.Court becomes functus officio and Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall his order . Vs Wipro Finance Ltd..Fine .. 138-.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 2001(8) SCC 458 : 2001(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 701 : 2001 CRI LJ 1781 : AIR 2001 SC 2895 : 2005 SCC (CRI.Dismissal for default . 1881.2001 (SUPP. LJ 4745 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque if issued to cheat .N. 138-.Rajeshwari Vs H.Presumption is that it was issued towards discharge of debt or liability . 142-.Surety of debtor when issues a cheque .. (M/s Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd..Mehta & Anr. 1881.).C.Retired Director who did not function as Director either on date of cheque or when cause of action arose for non payment cannot be prosecuted.) ISJ (BANKING) 0628 : 2001(1) ANDH LD (CRI) 312 : 2001 CRI LJ 1489 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Ltd. complaint dismissed for default under unavoidable circumstances.Complaint .#21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (M/s OPTS Marketing Pvt. 6.P.In view of fact that second complaint of offence of dishonour of cheque is not possible on account of limitation coming in way.Cheque . Vs State of A. 141-. 7-. & Ors. 138-.2001 (SUPP. 124. 1881..Notice to drawer alone and not the other accused . (M/s A..Shah Vs Smt. 138-.Onus is on accused .In that case also S.Pay order . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 174 (S.Niru B. therefore request you to kindly send the content.).Order issuing process against person who had not drawn the cheque and to whom notice under Section 138 not given quashed.Dishonour of cheque .Endorsee of cheque can file criminal complaint but he has to satisfy the Court that cheque was endorsed in his favour for valuable consideration. & Anr. (Hiten Sagar & Anr.).).Accused has to prove by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.Cheque drawn by one of the accused .Drawer intimated by post. (Ashok Muthanna.Director .R.L.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 635 (S. 138-. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 326 (A.'Request to make payment within a week failing which the matter will be referred by us to our legal department' .Cheque if issued to cheat . 1881. (M/s OPTS Marketing Pvt.Dishonour of cheque . from the averments in the complaint.An assertion in the complaint reading 'Towards the part satisfaction of the business debt the accused issued a cheque bearing No. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 511 (A.M. 138. 141-.P.P. Vs M/s. (M/s.Punishment .Prosecution u/s 138 NI Act and also under S..).. Chennai Vs G...Ltd. 138.Notice . no ground to quash the complaint.Suspension of sentence subject to execution of bond of Rs. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 288 (MADRAS) #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.P.) #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Wipro Finance Ltd.' .2001 (SUPP..).Accused informing complainant before presentation of cheque that amount mentioned in cheque does not represent the correct quantum of liability of the accused and that a fresh cheque can be issued based on correct . 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0075 #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (KERALA) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 000/.Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Wipro Finance Ltd. 1881.Conditions imposed being unjust and unreasonable cannot be sustained.420 IPC can be launched .(India) Limited.Veerendra Haggade). 000/and deposit of Rs.5.1998.Not a notice as contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 138 of the Act .).2001 (SUPP. 1881.M.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.) : 1999 .. 506 & 120-B IPC not maintainable simultaneously with proceedings under S.Quashing of complaint ..Proceedings under Ss.Held.Court is within its power to consider material which accused may produce even before the commencement of trial to decide whether accused is to be discharged .Held. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A. 138-.T.) ISJ (BANKING) 0628 : 2001(1) ANDH LD (CRI) 312 : 2001 CRI LJ 1489 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .). (Rajeev Indani Vs D..Pleadings . 138-.Company .1998 . 117-. 1881.Parameswara Traders).Conditions imposed should be commensurate with or proportionate to the sentence imposed by the trial Court and the conditions imposed should not be more onerous or stringent than the sentence imposed by the trial Court and the same should be just and reasonable and in accordance with natural justice .Complaint .Period of 15 days to send demand notice to drawer of cheque will begin from 23.60.. 1881. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Cooperative Urban Bank Ltd. (Ravi Vs Aravindan).Complaint singed by the counsel but not by the complainant . Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd.420 IPC. (M/s A.Order set aside . (Subhash Chandra Das Vs State & Anr.) ISJ (BANKING) 0758 #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 232 (RAJASTHAN) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayfair Knitting Industries Limited. 138.. (Ashok Muthanna..Public document and indisputable document can be looked into .Complaint filed again when limitation had expired . 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-. 1881.. T.) : 1999 . it cannot be held that there is no assertion that the cheque in question was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt.Legally enforceable debt .138 Negotiable Instruments Act.)..Compensation Drawee is entitled to compensation . 1881.Returned . 1881.60.. 138-.Vijyakumara).4. 138-.Complaint quashed. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78 #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Appeal Suspension of sentence . 138-.420.Intimation from bank regarding dishonour of cheque received on 22. Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd.Section 138 NI Act is not introduced in lieu of S. 1881. 000/.Trial Court awarded sentence of three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. (Ashok Muthanna.P.4. 138-.Remedy of compensation is in addition to common law remedy for recovery of amount covered by cheque.P. 1881.Averments in complaint that cheque was issued by authorised signatory of Company at instruction of accused who were incharge of day-to-day affairs of company and that they had taken a vital role in issuing cheque . Vs State of A.Complaint not to be dismissed as initial date of presentation is the criteria.Notice ..Form 32 under Companies Act and Rules is a public document. . 1881.Revision . (Rajeev Indani Vs D.Conviction . 141-..Goods were sent from place `K' to place `J' . Vs M/s. such a letter does not constitute any defence to the charge u/s 138 of the Act. 1881. (Pradyut Kumar Mohanty Vs Dilip Singh Meheta)..Jurisdiction .There is no specific bar under the provisions of S. 138.Firm in whose favour cheque was issued situated at place `K' ..T. 1881.).Parties same . 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 511 (A.9972/. T. 138-.Notice for payment of Rs.It can either be at the place where the drawer resides or at the place where the payee resides or at the place where either of them carries on business.Duly constituted power of attorney can file complaint .Cheque deposited at place `J' and dishonoured .Dishonoured . 1881.Cheque amount Rs. 138-. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 561 (A.) ISJ (BANKING) 0758 #17: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0366 : 2001(3) REC CRI R 217 : 2001(1) ALT(CRI.. Vs M/s. 142-. 138-.Company .Dishonour of cheque . 138..Barred by limitation .Cheque . 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (P&H) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0525 #18: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Notice for payment of Rs.. 138-.Veerendra Haggade).Dishonour of cheque .3871/. the Special Power of Attorney executed by the Chairman and Managing Director is sufficient to authorise Recovery Manager to launch the prosecution. 71 #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Parameswara Traders).) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0375 : 2001(3) SCC 726 #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0075 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A. 138-. 1881. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (ORISSA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0355 #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).) 411 : 2001(2) L. 138-.Complaint by Recovery Manager who held special power of attorney from Managing Director .Cheque amount Rs.Citi Bank).Cheque was issued in the name of the firm at place `K' .Jurisdiction . 138-. 138-.9972/. (M/s Narindera Textile Vs Girdhari Lal Bansal).Notice sent .) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0366 : 2001(3) REC CRI R 217 : 2001(1) ALT(CRI.Held.No illegality in filing the complaint .Complaint on the basis of second notice .. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.). 1881.Power of attorney holder .Complaint should have been filed on failure to make payment on issuance of first notice.Held. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 561 (A.Notice sent again .Yankay Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.Entire payment tendered and accepted during pendency of revision .C. 1881.).) : 1999 .Typographical mistake . (M/s..Held.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.P.P.) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 249 (S.Becomes a cheque on the date which is written thereon .On request of accused cheque against presented and again dishonoured .ascertainment of accounts and advising him not to present the cheque .3871/.S.142 of the Act for filing a complaint by the special power of attorney. 1881. 1881. 71 #23: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Offence under Section 138 'being a technical offence' all the technical formalities as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act must be complied with. 1881. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.Even in the absence of the minutes of the Board.Notice issued from place `J' on behalf of the firm of place `K' Complaint filed at place `K' .Offence is of the same nature - . (Ashok Yeshwant Badave Vs Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar & Anr. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (S.) 411 : 2001(2) L.As payment has been accepted and the offence being compoundable as such conviction and setence set aside.P.Firm had also an account at place `J' ..Yankay Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. the payee or the holder in due course must demand payment of the amount covered by the cheque .M. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) #19: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Offence sprouted from different cheques filed at two different places .. (Ramesh Gattani Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. (M/s. (M/s.S.C.2001 (SUPP. (Ramesh Gattani Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.Six months period has to be reckoned from the date mentioned on the face of the cheque and not any earlier date on which the cheque was made over by the drawer to the drawee.. Court at place `K' has jurisdiction to try the case.Post dated cheque .(India) Limited. Vs M/s.Citi Bank).If the demand is for a lesser amount or an higher amount not covered by the cheque then the prosecution must fail as the statutory requirement of the provision is not fulfilled. 256 (1) Cr..Parties entering into compromise .Only option available to the Court is either to grant sanction to withdraw from the prosecution or to acquit accused under S.No ground to quash criminal proceedings which have to continue to its logical end.Illegality is curable u/s 460(e) Cr.Nachimuthu). 138-. Court in its discretion may allow it.Pleader .Withdrawal of complaint .. it may mean there is no witness to be examined on his behalf .Nachimuthu). 1881. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 626 (P&H) : 1999 .) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Power document not presented initially .Single complaint cannot be said to be bad in law .Conviction .P.Omission does not vitiate proceedings nor does it invalidate order of issue of summons . (M.It is illegal.Permission accorded to compound the offence. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 635 (KARNATAKA) #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 544 (MADRAS) #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton & General Merchants).Includes any person appointed with permission of Court to act in such proceedings.Demand not only of cheque amount but also of other amounts and interest .M. Vs Rajalaxmi Traders).K. is liable to be quashed. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (KERALA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0317 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881.Gupta Vs Vijay Kumar Madan). 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S. 138-. (Biju Thomas Vs Devaki Amma).List of prosecution witnesses .C. if amounts are indicated separately . 138-.Civil suit as well as complaint u/s 138 filed . he is deemed to have complied with notice. 138-. 138.Other Directors can be proceeded against only if it is specifically alleged in complaint that they too participated in commission of offence . 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 544 (MADRAS) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.. . but does not vitiates the proceedings .Company . 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (KERALA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0317 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Jakkanna alias Tippanna Mallappa Jakkannavar & Anr.219 of Cr.If accused has paid amount of only dishonoured cheque..Appeal against .Manian Vs P.M. 138-. 138-.2001 (SUPP.P. (Tiruchandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills (Private) Limited & Ors. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (P&H) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.L. Vs Sri Vishnu Cement Limited & Anr.If Complainant makes an application with list of witnesses subsequently showing sufficient cause for non-filing of list alongwith complaint.. Vs Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton & General Merchants). 1881.C.Issue of process before filing list of witnesses . 1881. 138-.). not when cheques were dishonoured but on service of notice and on failure to make payment .Manian Vs P.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act Single trial is in fact advantageous to accused.Accused paid the amount of cheque . (S.Compounding of offence .Complaint by Power of Attorney holder ..Notice .Single cause of action arose. 1881. 1881.Withdrawal of complaint Taking coercive steps against the accused after the complainant submits application for withdrawal of complaint on complaint's continuous absence is an abuse of the process of Court. 141-.Omission is curable by producing list to accused before evidence is taken .Procedural provision of S.. (T. (S.Dishonour of cheque .Notice is not invalid for inclusion of such amounts in demand.) ISJ (BANKING) 0462 #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.If list of witnesses is not filed by complainant.Court taking cognizance of complaint . (M/s Ayyannar Agencies and Anr.M.Person who was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for conduct of business of Company is liable to be proceeded against . 138-. 1881. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.10 Cheques dishonoured . held is not applicable to proceedings under S.Transfer of complaint from one place to another place ordered in the interest of justice and also for the convenience of conducting the trial and disposal of all the cases. 138-. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. (N.Gandhi Vs State). (Biju Thomas Vs Devaki Amma)..Civil suit decreed in favour of drawee . 1881. 1881.Two notices each covering five cheques served on two different days and single complaint filed .Dishonour of cheque . (Tiruchandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills (Private) Limited & Ors.Cognizance taken against other Directors in absence of specific allegation against them. Period of 15 days envisaged in S.Sushma Kedia). (Thapar Agro Mills Vs Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation).).138 is made out .Complaint returned for presentation before proper Court .Company a Sick Industrial Unit .Complaint is not maintainable.Accused depositing amount of cheque before Appellate Court .Jakkanna alias Tippanna Mallappa Jakkannavar & Anr. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) : 1999 .C.138 (c) . 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 635 (KARNATAKA) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act..Accused issued seven post dated cheques in discharge of debt . 1932.During pendency of appeal parties arriving at settlement . (M/s Cranex Ltd. 1881. 138-..) : 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 183 (S. 138-. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Delay in representing the complaint will not make the complaint barred by time. 1881.Complaint filed before Court which had no territorial jurisdiction but was otherwise competent to take cognizance of offence . S.It is not a ground to quash complaint u/ss 138. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0668 #20: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.A fact to be decided at the time of trial .Ltd. 141-. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0668 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. but by different judgments.Ltd. 138-.) : 2000(2) ALT 275 (SC) : 2000(7) SCC 388 : 2000(4) REC CRI R 357 : AIR 2000 SC 3145 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138-.`Any debt or other liability' .Not disclosing any offence . (Patel Dinneshkumar Shivram Somdas Vs Patel Keshavlal Mohanlal). 1881. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (Criminal Procedure Code. (Shanku Concretes Pvt.. (Meenakshi Gupta Vs Smt. 1881.15 lacs to accused .Appellate Court will consider whether conviction is to be maintained or an order of imposition of fine is to be passed.. 138-.Complaint by unregistered Partnership firm . (Amit Desai Vs M/s Shine Enterprises).) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0547 : 2000 CRI.No form is prescribed of the notice .Complaint .Cheques were issued as collateral security by accused and not to discharge any existing debt . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (KERALA) #15: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Rajalaxmi Traders). (Partnership Act.Dishonour of cheque . LJ 2386 (AP) #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Complainant undertook that he will not press for conviction and sentence .Notice .M. 138.P.Sushma Kedia). 1881.Appellate Court to consider subsequent events and pass orders according to law . 1881. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Ltd.Begins to run on the day next to the day on which the service of notice has been effected. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (GUJARAT) . 1973. (Meenakshi Gupta Vs Smt. (Hammanna S.Territorial jurisdiction . 1881. (Shanku Concretes Pvt.).(T. & Ors. 138-. 138-.Case is of civil nature.Dishonour of cheque ..FIR and complaint case over same subject matter .Dishonour of cheque .No criminal offence under S.) ISJ (BANKING) 0649 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 1881.Notice .High Court need not direct the parties to file proper application before Magistrate before discharge..Company . 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (S.. & Ors.Complaint .C.Dishonour of cheques .Complainant giving a debt of Rs.Trial Court convicted accused .). (Abdul Azeez Nazeem Vs Radhakrishnan). 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 60 (A. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .69). 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (GUJARAT) #21: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Both cases should be tried and disposed of separately by the same Judicial Officer and disposed of simultaneously.Nayak Vs Vijay Kumar Kalani & Anr. (2) it has to be given within 15 days of receipt of information regarding return of cheque unpaid and (3) demand for payment of the amount of the cheque has to be made in the notice.Compounding of offence . 1881. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 7 (GUJARAT) #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 74 (P&H) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Proceedings cannot be quashed at the initial stage.2001 (SUPP.Accused can approach High Court for quashing of criminal proceedings at any stage when no offence is made out .The essential elements of the notice are (1) it has to be in writing.. 138-.201)..Complaint represented before proper Court . S. Order of cognizance not to be interfered with. (Subrata Kumar Dash Vs Pradeep Kumar Ram). no appeal lies against such order of conviction Remedy is only revision.).N. (Vinayagam & Ors. (Vinayagam & Ors.Conviction of accused Compromise between parties . 138-..That by itself does not make the notice illegal.`Cheque reported stolen' .2001 (SUPP.).) ISJ (BANKING) 0749 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque issued by Company and signed by one `D' its Managing Director .) ISJ (BANKING) 0228 #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Petitioners had executed power of attorney in favour of one partner Petitioners not vicariously liable . (T. 138-. 141-. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (DELHI) : 2000(3) REC CRI R 315 : 2000(2) AD (DELHI) 244 : 2000(52) DRJ 261 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. it is difficult to take a decision as to whether the petitioner avoided to receive the notice or not.Complaint can be made against drawer of the cheque only Proceedings against the petitioner who is not the drawer.V. 141-. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (ORISSA) : (2001) 18 OCR 733 : 1999 . 138.) #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Compounding of offence allowed by Court . Vs Khushroo F. Vs Subhash . it will not preclude an action under Section 138 by the drawee or the holder of cheque in due course.Cheque issued by one person towards discharge of debt of another person .Defective complaint but filed within time Returned for removing certain defects .) #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.For holding a person vicariously liable for the offence committed by a Company or a firm it is the actual role played by such a person in the management and conduct of the business of the company or the firm.Revision and not appeal is the remedy available .Cheque dishonoured with this endorsement .No allegation in the complaint that the offence was committed by the company and that `D' is sought to be prosecuted by virtue of the provision u/s 141 of the Act in his capacity as an officer or the person in-charge of and responsible to for the conduct of the business of the company .2001 (SUPP.. 1881. 1881. 1881..`D' sought to be prosecuted in his personal capacity .Materials available not sufficient to prove the plea .Anjanappa).) ISJ (BANKING) 0010 #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. quashed.#22: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Date not fixed for their re-presentation .. 1881. but in exercise of revisional powers. not on trial..Offence u/s 138 is made out .There is no procedure in the Code for returning the defective complaint for removal of defects and re-presentation of the same . 138-.2001 (SUPL. accused cannot claim any benefit.Dishonour of cheque . (D.Defective complaint .Raghu Vs Smt.Prosecution of all the five partners of the firm .. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 477 (A.Appeal lies only if conviction is recorded by trial Court . 138-. 1881.Complaint represented after period of limitation . 138-.Conviction set aside.).Sessions Judge in revision convicted accused .Nagaraj Vs B. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 315 (A.Nayak Vs Vijay Kumar Kalani & Anr. (Saraswathy Amma Vs M/s Swil Limited).Complaint against `D' quashed.V.2001 (SUPP. 138-. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) : 1999 .P. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 290 (KARNATAKA) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.V.Acquittal by trial Court . 1881.Cheque .) ISJ (BANKING) 0649 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Engineer M/s Zen Global Finance Ltd. (P. 138.Laxmi).21 days period mentioned in the demand notice . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (MADRAS) : 1999 . (Gummadi Industries Ltd.K. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 209 (MADRAS) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. it would be held to be validly filed and on that count.It shows intention of drawer that he wanted to stop payment .. (Chandran Vs Sathyanandan). 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (KERALA) : 1999 . 1881.Dishonoured .Quashing of cognizance sought on the ground that no notice was served .Where conviction is recorded by Sessions Jude. 1881. 1881.Merely because drawer issued a notice to the drawee or to the Bank for stoppage of payment.P. or as to whether the complaint has been filed within the period of limitation or not .Accused paying entire amount of cheque .Notice .Complainant has to suffer for defects in the complaint.In absence of evidence.Dishonour of cheque .. (Hammanna S..Chandra Reddy Vs Ghourisetti Prabhakar & Anr.Date for presentation of complaint would be the date it was initially presented and that being within limitation.Partnership firm . 138-. Vs Subhash Chandran). P. Vs State of Maharashtra). 1881.Court is not to punish the parties for the mistake committed by them or their counsel .V.P.Imposing penalty of fine would meet ends of justice .Nagaraj Vs B.Witness to be recalled for producing the document .. (Narsingh Das Tapadia Vs Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr.Complaint is maintainable by petitioner who is the payee.) ISJ (BANKING) 0643 #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.Complaint cannot be dismissed for the reason that it was presented at an earlier date and it also does not confer any right upon the accused to absolve himself from the criminal liability for the offence committed .Document sought to be produced by recalling a witness .Company . Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited).2001 (SUPP.Pre mature complaint . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 427 (A.Cheque drawn in the name of 'Indusind Bank Limited A/c Credential Finance Limited or Bearer' .Conviction .).Date of delivery of notice .Acquittal by trial Court .Accused paying amount due under cheque and interest thereon pending appeal . 138-.Authority to file complaint by a resolution of Board of Directors .Directors are not vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company. (M/s Credential Finance Ltd.Cheque dishonoured . if Banker's name is shown in the Payee's column before the account holders name and it is crossed specially in conformity with S.2001 (SUPP. 138-. 138-.Notice . 1881.5.Order passed by Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction . 1881.2001 (SUPL.Dishonour of cheque .Sessions Judge in revision convicted accused .Sentence substituted with fine of Rs.Petition allowed.The same set aside. (M/s Credential Finance Ltd.A case can be said to be instituted in a Court only when the Court takes cognizance of the offence alleged therein. 138. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (MADRAS) : 1999 .Bank was not the payee .Janakimanoharan & Anr.. 141-. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (BOMBAY) : 1999 .The principle that prosecution cannot be permitted at a later stage during the trial to fill up the gaps in the prosecution case does not apply to a case where an honest mistake made at an earlier stage is sought to be corrected ...Vicarious liability of Directors Directors are not liable for prosecution unless it is alleged in the complaint that they were in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business and that cheques were issued with their consent and connivance ..) ISJ (BANKING) 0643 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (S. then it can be treated as cross cheque specially authorising the bank to collect it on behalf of the account holder and remit to his account.Not a ground for rejection of complaint . 1881.Chandran).) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT .It is a question of fact to be decided by trial Court.Complaint not maintainable by bank . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 290 (KARNATAKA) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.124 of the Act.Cheque drawn in the name of 'Indusind Bank Limited A/c Credential Finance Limited or Bearer' . 138-...Relevant document mentioned in the list of documents filed alongwith complaint . not proper .C.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0690 : (2000) 10 JT (SC) 141 : AIR 2000 SC 2946 : 2000(4) RCR 039 : 2000(7) SCC 183 : 2000(3) MPLJ 531 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.).It can either await maturity or be returned to the complainant for filing later .P. 138-.) : 2000(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 129 (S.However. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 332 (ALLAHABAD) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.). 138-. (Swaran Munjal Vs State of U. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A. 1881.Held.Not mentioned in complaint . (M/s Recon Agrotech Limited Vs M/s Vijaya Sales Corporation & Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra).) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0690 : (2000) 10 JT (SC) 141 : AIR 2000 SC 2946 : 2000(4) RCR 039 : 2000(7) SCC 183 : 2000(3) MPLJ 531 #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (T.Anjanappa).C.Trial Court awarding six months simple imprisonment .C.). only an appeal against order of acquittal lies to High Court No revision against such order is entertainable .Refusal of lower Court to recall witness for marking the correct document.) #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. alongwith complaint another document filed . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (BOMBAY) : 1999 .) : 2000(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 129 (S..) ISJ (BANKING) 0228 #7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. (Narsingh Das Tapadia Vs Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr. 138-. no useful purpose would be served by sending accused back to jail . 000/-. (K. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (S. (K. . (ii) The cheque should be presented for payment within six months or . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0577 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.The date on which the cause of action arose is to be excluded. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 524 (BOMBAY) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0461 #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Held..To be decided at the trial . Two Executive Directors and one Director .Received back with endorsement 'No such addressee in B... 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (ORISSA) : (2000)18 OCR 398 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. (Rajendra Vasantrao Khode Vs Laxmikant Shantilal Choudhari).P.Company is not liable . (Rohinton Noria Vs M/s NCC Finance Ltd. 1881.Not permissible to go into the questions u/s 482 Cr....29 Industrial Estate' .Dishonour of cheque . (Biswaranjan Pattnaik Vs Teem Finance Company Limited). 138-.Notice . the question of gaining over the postal peon is a factual allegation which has to be considered only at the time of trial by referring to the evidence Order of cognizance not liable to be disturbed on this ground. (Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Padmanabhan).Cheque issued by an employee of company in discharge of liability of Company .P. 1881. 138.). (Biswaranjan Pattnaik Vs Teem Finance Company Limited).Held.Complaint against Directors of company must contain factual foundation disclosing their liability . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0577 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (ORISSA) : (2000)18 OCR 398 #22: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. under S.) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company ..) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0216 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Rajendra Vasantrao Khode Vs Laxmikant Shantilal Choudhari). 1881. Vs P.. (Radhakrishnan Nair Vs Padmanabhan).C.Surya Kumari).Accused to approach trial Magistrate to recall the process.Notice .Closure of account . 141-.) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Closure of account strengthens the intention of accused to cheat .Company .Premature complaint .Complaint filed against Company. (Biswaranjan Pattnaik Vs Teem Finance Company Limited).Payee or the holder in due course of the cheque has to give a written notice in a correct address to the drawer of the cheque .Sent at the correct address . Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited).P. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 555 (A. his right to prosecute the offender is not curtailed if the notice validly tendered was not received by the drawer of the cheque. 138-.Petitioner alleged to have resigned from post of Director even before issuance of cheque . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 524 (BOMBAY) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0461 #20: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 the person who is liable for dishonour of cheque will be the one who has drawn and issued the cheque. 141-.Petition dismissed.Janakimanoharan & Anr.Not sufficient. Two Executive Directors and one Director are in-charge of and responsible to the company and looking after the day to day affairs of the company Disputed question of fact .Appellate Court has power to award compensation or fixing the quantum of compensation either by reversing or modifying the sentence of the trial Court. 138-. 1881.Limitation . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.One month .High Court not to interfere in writ jurisdiction .Court has no power to impose default sentence of imprisonment for non payment of compensation . 1881.Main factors to maintain a complaint are: (i) The cheque in question should have been issued in discharge of whole or in part of a debt or liability. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (A.Whether account was closed with dishonest intention or otherwise can be looked into at trial stage. 138.Computation . 1881. (Janachaitanya Housing (P) Ltd. 1881. complaint states that Managing Director. 138-. 138-.Offence u/s 138 of the Act is made out .Negotiable Instruments Act.Only recovery proceedings can be initiated. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (ORISSA) : (2000)18 OCR 398 #21: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. Managing Director. 1881. 138-..This endorsement alleged to be obtained by gaining over the postal peon .Once this legal obligation is discharged. 1881. 138-. 138-.Mere whisper in complaint suggesting their involvement .In other words correctness of the address on the envelope not disputed . 1881.However.Proceedings against the company quashed ..Cheque issued not on behalf of the company Dishonour of cheque . `Cause of action' . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 664 (M.. 138-.. (v) Complaint can be made only by payee or the holder in due course within one month of the arising of the cause of action. 138-.Director of Company who issued cheque resigned . 120-B IPC. (Sunil Aggarwal Vs Rajwanti).Proviso (c) ..Ramanujachari). 138-.Drawer could pay the amount of cheque only.Held. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 583 (S. 138-.138 is served upon drawer. the debt was time barred . whichever is earlier. complainant is at liberty to file a fresh complaint under the provisions of IPC. 1881.V..Cheque issued in the year 1990 . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (P&H) #7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Shakti Travel & Tours Vs State of Bihar & Anr. 138-..Before an order summoning an accused person is passed by the Magistrate. (Sunil Aggarwal Vs Rajwanti).C. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (A.Notice .Date of receipt . 470.1.Pareed Rawther). 1881.Veracity of the averment will depend on the evidence produced at the trial. he is liable to be prosecuted.P. 138-. Vs State of Maharashtra). if so advised. 138-.Notice not invalid .No ground to quash the complaint.). 1881.K. 1881.Loan advanced in the year 1985 .) : 2000(2) RCR (CRL.C.Held. (Rom Industries Ltd. 1881. (iv) The drawer gets 15 days time after receipt of the notice to make the payment and only if he fails to pay.) ACC 663 (SC) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.12.1998 . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 609 (KERALA) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Not a ground to quash complaint against him . (Pearl Food Products Vs V.Amount of cheque clearly mentioned .P.its specific period.Complaint filed on 6. 1881. 1881.) : 2002(9) SCC 415 : JT 2000(7) SC 563 : 2003(2) ISJ (BANKING) 0380 : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0555 : 2001 AIR SCW 2307 : 2001(1) REC CRI R 465 : 2000(4) CRIMES 150 : 2003(SUPPL. (Sunil Aggarwal Vs Rajwanti). 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (BOMBAY) : 1999 . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (ALLAHABAD) #8: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. as the summoning order is only u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act .The liability under the provision arises against a person who signs or issues the cheque which is subsequently dishonoured .Complaint not maintainable.Cause of action to file complaint arose on 22. it has to be made out by the complainant that the drawer has failed to make the payment to him within fifteen days of the .Later on Company declared sick under Sick Industrial Companies Act .).420.Both supplement and complement each other . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.costs of notice claimed besides cheque amount .Limitation .`Legally enforceable debt' . (Girdhari Lal Rathi Vs P.By the time the cheque was issued.Complaint could be filed on or before 22. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (P&H) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) #10: JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint beyond period of limitation Complaint dismissed irrespective of the fact that it is filed u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act as well as Ss...) ISJ (BANKING) 0643 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.1998 .Dishonoured Complaint filed and summoning order issued .Complaint dismissed.Notice . 1881.Notice received by accused on 7.) : 2000(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 370(1) (S.2001 (SUPP.No offence is made out on dishonour of cheque.11..).. it does not affect the proceedings . (Shailesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.Debt was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of the cheque . cause of action arises only when notice under S. Vs State of M.Rs.Cheque presented a number of times and dishonoured .550/.Cognizance of offence to be taken if the allegation in the complaint and sworn statement together make out a case for the offence alleged.1998 .) 0051 : 1997(2) CRIMES 658 #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint and sworn statement .11.P.However. 467.Non mention in complaint that notice has been served . 471. 138-.Cheque issued by Company .T. 138-.). (iii) The payee or holder should give notice of demand within 15 days of received information of dishonour which may be due to insufficient funds or the amount payable exceeds the arrangement. (Shailesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.To be clearly made out as without this it is not possible to reckon period of 15 days .1999 is beyond period of limitation . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (ALLAHABAD) #9: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. (M/s Credential Finance Ltd.Not to be read disjunctively . 1881. 138-. Default in payment of instalments . 138-. (M/s Adithya Alkaloids Ltd. on the ground that there was no service of notice ..The sworn statement and statements recorded on oath by the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance of an offence on complaint do not form an integral part of the complaint. CASES 0538 : 2001(2) LW (CRI.) 0220 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Branch Manager .Security . with clear averment in the complaint that they were responsible for non payment of the amount after receipt of notice within statutory period .) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 : 2001 CRI LJ 1585 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complainant entered the date on the undated cheque given to him earlier and presented the same to claim the amount .The debt was not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of cheque and the accused cannot be punished u/s 138 of the Act. 138-.) 0051 : 1997(2) CRIMES 658 #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (A. shows that his address is same . 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 679 (J&K) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0567 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. Manager etc. Returned to sender' .Sent at the address given by drawer himself . (K.P.Cheque dishonoured .Notice .C.Accused issued 36 fresh cheques .Cheque dishonoured . (Girdhari Lal Rathi Vs P.Held.What is the purport of endorsement made on the letter are questions of fact which have to be gone into during trial.By the time the cheque was issued the amount payable was barred by limitation because no acknowledgment was obtained before the expiry of 3 years . 141-. maintainable and not liable to be quashed. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 34 (P&H) : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0539 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL. 138-. 1881.Certified copy of decree obtained by drawer in suit filed by him in same month in which notice in the present case was sent.) 0031 : 1999 (96) COMP. 1881..) : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL. 1881. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (BOMBAY) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0444 : 2000(1) RCR(CRL. (Ashwini Satish Bhat (Mrs.V..Janakimanoharan & Anr. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.There must be clear factual foundation laid in the complaint itself attracting the ingredients of S.) : 1999 .99 (SUPP.)..He presented the cheque for encashment on behalf of the principal company .P.`Legally enforceable debt or liability' . 1881.P.Held. 138. 1881.T.Ramanujachari).Complaint against Directors.But neither the initials of the drawer nor the name of father of the drawer is shown in the said entry .).receipt of the notice.Ltd.Directors . 138.) 611 #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.No amount of evidence can be looked into without allegations made in the complaint.Voters list prepared a year earlier to date on which drawer himself gave his address . & Anr.2001 (SUPP. Chairman. 1881. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 98 (MADRAS) : 1996 .) 0829 : 1999(1) GLT 408 : 2000(5) BCR 9 : 1999(1) GOA LT 408 : 1999(2) BC 519 #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Ltd.Undated cheque issued as security Subsequently there was hire purchase agreement between accused and complainant .) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.No ground to quash proceedings u/s 482 Cr.Notice . (Bicycle Manufacturing Corporation Vs Samrat Shipping Company Pvt.Amount payable in 1991 .Voters list produced by drawer by way of rebuttal evidence to prove that he was not residing at given address but elsewhere during relevant time . 1881.138 of the Act against every person arrayed as an accused in the complaint ..P.P... 1881.Complaint held.Allegations made in the complaint cannot be read along with the sworn statement recorded at the time of taking the complaint on file and the allied document to find out whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused for the alleged offence . 138-.) Vs Jeevan Divakar Lolienkar).Drawer issuing blank cheque in 1996 .Company .). Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited). 141-.Received back with postal endorsement 'Not claimed. cheque worked out when fresh cheques were issued and that cheque cannot be made use of for enforcement of subsequent hire purchase agreement. (V.) : 2000(2) RCR (CRL.) 0199 #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (A.Company .He is the holder in due course .Competent to file complaint Cheque issued and given to the Branch Manager for encashment . (Kumari Sunita Charak Vs Ajay Kumar Sharma).Venugopal Vs State of A.) ISJ (BANKING) 0616 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0295 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. Branch Manager is competent to file the complaint even without there being any authorisation since he is responsible for all his acts on behalf of the company.The facts stated in the complaint must disclose commission of an offence by each one of the accused . Vs M/s NCC Finance Limited).Notice received back with endorsement 'addressee not found' . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 105 (A. 138-. (Natesha Singh Vs M/s Klen and Marshalls of Manufacturers and Exporters Pvt.. ).A-2 is the Chief Managing Director and Signatory. 1881.Cheque dishonoured .Payment to be made within 15 days . (B.) #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Not barred by limitation.Normally a Managing Director is supposed to be incharge of managing the Company and would obviously be responsible to the Company. 1881. 138-.Complaint filed in a Court having no jurisdiction .Absence of an averment in the complaint that the Managing Director is in-charge and responsible to the Company .Proceedings quashed.Amount of cheque already paid . (Potuganti Sreenivas Vs Public Prosecutor & Anr.Cheque to be presented within six months or its period of validity . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 153 (KARNATAKA) #19: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of the Directors . 1881. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 178 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 2001 (SUPP. as such he is liable for prosecution . (M.Held.Guarantee .Complaint quashed.Specifically denied .Sathyanarayana Vs C..Harchand Vs Prem Nath Dhawan). (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited.Company . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 5 (P&H) #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Nazeem Vs Radhakrishnan).. 138-. 1881. & Anr.Held.).A-1 is company and is liable for prosecution .Ledger account of drawer showed that payment had been received by him ..to which notice was sent .Death of `V' before presentation of cheque . 1881. which is the basis for the liability for payment of money on the part of the accused. 138-.Cheque issued by one `V' on behalf of partnership firm .Notice in writing to drawer to be given within 15 days of the receipt of information from the bank .Complaint against A-4 quashed.Company . 138-. 138-.Mere absence of averment in the complaint that the accused is in-charge of and responsible to the Company does not justify quashing of the proceedings .Managing Director .Death prior to presentation of cheque Partnership firm ..`Cause of action' .P. (Draupadi Devi alias Maya Sippi Vs The State of Rajasthan).P. 138-. 141. 142. & Anr.Alexander & Anr. 138. of which the accused is the Managing Director shows that he has been the Managing Director of the Company .. 1881.P. 141.Cheque dishonoured . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.) #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Managing Director . 138-.Notice issued and complaint filed by Advocate on instructions given by Power of attorney holder of payee and not by payee himself Not illegal.Petition dismissed.Complaint returned for presenting in a Court having territorial jurisdiction Complaint represented before proper Court after expiry of period of limitation . describes him as Managing Direction and even the reply notice sent by the Company.Loan taken by son .Accused issued cheque as guarantee on behalf of his son ..) #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.A-3 is the Director and authorised signatory and is thus liable for prosecution .P. hence liable for prosecution .) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. rebuttal evidence to prove non receipt of notice is liable to be rejected . (B. cognizance cannot be taken against his legal heirs who were not partners or is a partner or is incharge of the firm .Complaint against company and its Directors .A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to what role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted .Nagaraj).).) 257 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A. 1881.Jurisdiction . 1881.Accused described as Managing Director of the Company and the agreement..Notice is deemed to have been duly served . 27-. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (KERALA) #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.A-5 is a financial controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited.) ISJ (BANKING) 0797 : 2000(4) REC(CRI.Trial Court taking cognizance for the reason that legal heirs are responsible for certain acts of their predecessor and they should also be held liable for criminal action for facing trial and to undergo punishment .Limitation . Mumbai & Ors..Company .) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #2: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 265 (A.P. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C. (A. 1881. Hyderabad & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Conviction passed by trial Court is to be upheld and confirmed. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 226 (A.P. 138-.S.).). there is no ground to quash the proceedings at this stage..Complaint against wife and step son of `V' Held. of N.10.) ISJ (BANKING) 0718 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 .). 138-.P.Promissory note in favour of daughter who authorised father to collected the contents of the promissory note . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 .) ISJ (BANKING) 0249 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 000/.On failure to make the payment cause of action will accrue to the payee . (Sunil Sareen Vs Govt.Sentence . 1881.Magistrate of First Class can impose fine exceeding Rs.) 0322 #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. in addition to claims such as Bank charges and notice charges . (B. 1881.Harikrishna Vs Macro Links Private Limited & Anr..It cannot be said that the notice is vitiated especially when the respective claims are severable. 138-.. 138-.of the receipt of notice .) ISJ (BANKING) 0249 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0358 #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.5.Notice . 138-.No ground to quash the proceedings u/s 482 Cr. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 464 (A. (R.Sentence . (B.Almost 10 years have lapsed .Amount involved in cheques amounting to Rs.`Legally enforceable debt' .. 1881.Subbaiah & Anr.P.Cheques issued in the year 1990 . 000/-.Nageshwara Rao Vs B.V. (R.Limitation for filing complaint is one month after expiry of the said period of 15 days. 501/. 138.31500/.Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree Balaji Cotton Industries).Cheques bounced on presentation .Contention that father is endorsee without consideration . status of the accused as well as of the complainant.Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree Balaji Cotton Industries). 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 ..) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0068 #11: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.2001 (SUPP.2001 (SUPP.Courts must take into consideration all aspects of the case including the financial loss caused to the payee or holder in due course of the cheque. Court below was in error in imposing a meagre fine of Rs..).26. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (H.Respondents are the Company and its Managing Director .2 to 7 are its directors responsible for its day to day functioning as such are jointly and severally liable to the dues of the complainant . 1881.Harikrishna Vs Macro Links Private Limited & Anr. the drawee is entitled to fill it up and make a demand.Complaint .) ISJ (BANKING) 0249 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ch.Company .T. 141-.2001 (SUPP. (B..2001 (SUPP.Company . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 .Complainant must have suffered financially due to nonavailability of the amount .).Possibility of the cheque being filled in by the complainant as per his won volition for no lawful consideration is a strong possibility which cannot be ruled out and moreso when this cheque is .with default clause to undergo simple imprisonment for four months in case of non payment of fine. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 .Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree Balaji Cotton Industries). 1881.Cheques were issued in the name of father who became payee under the cheques .But the endorsement is 'to collect' and the same clothes the complainant with the authority to issue notice and realise the amount by filing civil suits and also criminal complaint . 138.for the problems created and the loss suffered by the complainant . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0725 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.. 1881.It cannot be said that complainant has no authority to file the complaint.Complainant had been filling in the cheques in the name of the accused for different amount at his will and has been dealing with the same in the manner he liked and it appears from the record that it was so . (Narinder Kumar Vs Harnam Singh).2001 (SUPP.If it discloses the amount for which the cheque was issued and dishonoured.Taking into consideration all these aspects fine enhanced to Rs. 1881.Blank cheque .) ISJ (BANKING) 0718 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).10.Limitation will start running on expiry of 15 days of the receipt of notice . 1881. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 . (R.Held. 138-.P.Harikrishna Vs Macro Links Private Limited & Anr.. 000/.Non impleading of the other Directors of the Company . 1881.Notice issued and thereafter accused issued cheques in the name of father for the amount claimed .2001 (SUPP..Contention to be raised at the trial only.) ISJ (BANKING) 0718 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. time and costs consumed in the litigation etc.C.Where the drawer gives blank cheque. 138-.Complaint against Directors Averment in complaint that accused Nos.Sentence .. 141-.Trial Court imposed fine of Rs. the quantum of the amount involved in the cheque. 138-. of Delhi). 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (KARNATAKA) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. by each of complainants . Vs M/s Raghuvansh Enterprises)..) 0765 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .Notice demanding the amount due issued from Registered office of the company located at place `H' . 27-. 138. 467 IPC also registered against the Managing Director and two Directors of the accused company on the ground that they forged a receipt of Rs.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0332 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.Sudhakar Rao).) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0358 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (KARNATAKA) #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.420. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #13: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Demand is to be of cheque amount Where in addition to payment of cheque amount drawee has also demanded payment of balance of principal amount of loan and up-to-date interest and the amounts are severable.Held.).Common notice combining claims of two complainants is not valid even though complainants are related to each other as husband and wife . 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (P&H) #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.borrowed by the accused from the complainant .Jurisdiction .Held.Death of partner .Ramachandra Gupta & Anr.G.As two Directors are women and not convicted u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments .138 of the act is made out on above facts Trial Court to go into these questions at the outset before issuance of notice as envisaged under S. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 80 (DELHI) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0071 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Can file a complaint.Dishonour of cheque . 000/. (N.P..Partnership firm Complaint filed by one of the partners .Power of attorney holder . 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 84 (A. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.Complaint on this ground cannot be quashed .Received back with endorsement 'addressee out of station .) : 1999 . (M/s Aparana Agencies Vs P. accused is liable to be acquitted solely on this ground.Vaidyanathan Deepkika Milk Marketing Vs M/s Dodia Dairy Limited).Complaint filed in Court at place `H' . Vs Punjab State CoOperative Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (H.Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that payment had already been made to drawee through Bank Drafts before the bouncing of cheques and drawee was called upon not to present the cheques .).Notice .Where one combined notice of husband and wife was issued demanding payment of total amount of loan including amounts of dishonoured cheques. these are questions of fact . it is to be held that there is no proper notice of demand .Proceedings would not abate .P.P... 138-. 1881.Alexander & Anr.A case under Ss.G.door locked for 7 days' . (Dr.2001 (SUPP.Proper . (Dior International (P) Ltd.Cheque dishonoured .Ramachandra Gupta & Anr.Adinarayana).. 1881.Complaint not maintainable. (M/s Shree Sarla Weavers Co-Operative Spinning Mills Ltd. 138-..) 0130 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint need not be filed at the place of dishonour of cheque only.C.Dishonour of cheque .) 0644 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. Vs Dr.Accused directed to move an application before Magistrate praying that no offence under S.K.There is no subsisting debt or other liability established which the accused was legally bound to discharge or was legally enforceable debt or other liability nor it is proved that the cheque was issued with a view to discharge such debt/liability .P. (Narinder Kumar Vs Harnam Singh).Proprietorship concern Prosecution can be launched against proprietary concern by putting cause title as proprietary concern represented by its proprietor. 471. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 74 (A.) ISJ (BANKING) 0509 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0179 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 1881.not proved to have been issued in lieu of the alleged amount of Rs. 1881..40 lacs in token of having made the payment to Complainant .Adinarayana).. notice cannot be held invalid. 1881.K.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act . 138-.Notice . 138-.Company .G.Separate demand must be made in respect of each dishonoured cheque. (Dr.Payment not made within the prescribed period of 15 days .Some other partner be brought on record to pursue the complaint. 138-. 138-. 1881.There is presumption of deemed service of notice. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 182 (MADRAS) #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque presented for collection at place `K' . 138-.G.251 Cr. 1881. (Vasavi Fertilisers Dealer Vs Nagarjuna Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd.Managing Director of the Company convicted under S. Vs Dr..30. 1881. 1881.). (Jose Antony Vs Official Liquidator).Form No.) ISJ (BANKING) 0221 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.1997 . 1881. 1881.Nothing on record to show that there was any act committed by them to draw the inference that they were vicariously liable . between the parties.C.C.Sanction of Market Committee under S. 1881.99 (SUPP.Dishonour of cheque .Company . 138.T.) ISJ (BANKING) 0652 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0013 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.Cheque dishonoured . & Anr.Ltd.99 (SUPP.B.Can only be decided at the trial.J. 138-.446 of the Companies Act .) ISJ (BANKING) 0019 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Dadia Vs State of Maharasthra). 141-. 138. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0229 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL. 141-.Complainant placed on record a copy of the Form No.Accused purchased Sun Flower Seeds and issued cheque of Rs.e.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies showing that the petitioner remained Director of the said Company upto 9.2001 (SUPP.Anticipatory bail also allowed to Managing Director till decision of appeal filed by him against conviction u/s 138 of the Act. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 533 (A..Act as such equity demands that anticipatory bail should be allowed to them .446 of the Companies Act is not attracted in criminal proceedings where the assets of the company are not involved and the proceedings pending against the accused were only in respect of the commission of the offence and the punishment thereon. (B. to quash the FIR on the contention that it was a commercial transaction .Complaint under S.) ISJ (BANKING) 0489 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0076 : ILR 1999 KARNATKA 4020 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.142 .It is a disputed question of fact . Vs M/s Sri Ganesh Oil Mill).Examination of the ..Dishonour of cheques .No claim made against assets of the company . nine Directors and three officers of the Company . 138-. (Yada Anjaneyulu Vs State of A. 142-.Director .7.138 of the Act mens rea is not an essential ingredient.For committing an offence under S.Petitioner already resigned at the relevant time . 138-. its Chairman. (M/s S. 138. Managing Director.Complaint against Company. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (P&H) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0077 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0642 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Arises only once .1991 .Mens rea . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 1999 .S. no complaint lies under S..) 0351 #2: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.32 issued by the Registrar of Companies shows that the petitioner has resigned from the said post of the Company w.When a cheque is issued as a security.Complaint against Chairman and others quashed ... payment etc. 138-.Loan taken and cheque issued .2. 1881. L.138 Negotiable Instruments Act . 141.50 lacs . 1881. weight.Company . (Pawan Sachdeva Vs State (U.107 IPC and S.) : 1999 .Held.Cause of action .) 0323 #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Adril D' Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd. 4361 : 1999 (5) BCR 0124 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. (Mahendra A.1.Complaint lodged alleging that accused have committed an offence under S.Sanction is only required when there is dispute of civil nature with regard to purchase.Company . 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (KERALA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 19. Vs State)...Nagaraj & Co. 1881. 1881. Chandigarh)).138 of the Act. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) : 1996 .) 0502 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 147 (KARNATAKA) : 1996 . 138-.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act .Petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.) 0309 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (FMI Investments Pvt. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0433 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0133 : 1998 CRL.84 of Agricultural Produce Marketing Act is not required .) 0269 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (DELHI) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0807 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.2001 (SUPP.Criminal proceedings cannot be stayed under S.Complaint filed after issuing a second notice and after 45 days of receipt of the first notice by the drawer Complaint is not maintainable.420 r/w S. (Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala).As regards Managing Director it could safely be inferred from his duties that he was vicariously liable for the offence.P.).Complaint under S..Cheque issued by Company and signed by Managing Director . 1881.. 138-.In fact many a cheating were committed in course of commercial and money transactions.Vicarious liability .).f.Both these forms have been issued by the Registrar of Companies ..Sharma Vs M/s Ashok Kumar Pradeep Kumar). contention not tenable .Under liquidation and Official Liquidator appointed . 138-. damages etc.Company .Goel Vs State of U.C.As the cause of action first arose on failure to make payment when notice was issued for the first dishonour of cheque second dishonour and service of notice will not give fresh cause of action.. 1881. Vs Air Force Naval Housing Board). 138-. cost etc. would be superfluous and these additional claims would be severable and will not invalidate the notice .Summons issued to accused for appearance . etc. (Modern Denim Ltd. (M/s Steel Strips Ltd. Vs Lucas TVS Ltd.Complaint .Complaint dismissed in default .Petitioner not present on the date fixed .Notice sent not to present cheques for encashment .P.). 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (ALLAHABAD) #12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 397 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0739 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Amounts to dishonour of cheque within meaning of Section 138 of the Act. (Suman Sethi Vs Ajay K.K. cost.Other such claims for interest. in the notice an omnibus demand is made without specifying what was due under the dishonoured cheque then notice is bad. 4 & 5 not liable to be prosecuted.200) (Harihara Iyer Vs State of Kerala).Held. 1881. 1881.2.P. however.. 1973.Notice issued .`Refusal to receive notice' .3 in her individual capacity and not as a partner of the firm . 138-.).Cheque again presented and again dishonoured . the cheque amount.Complaint filed .9. 138-.Cheques returned as instructions were given to bank to `stop payment' . (Modern Denim Ltd. Vs M/s Jyoti Mechanical Movements). 1881.. 138-.Inspite of it cheques presented for collection .) 0546 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.If. (S..LJ (SC) 301 : AIR 2000 SC 828 : 2000(1) ALT(CRL.). 139-.Resolution giving authorisation to Manager passed on 17.e.C.C.Authorisation given by complainant in favour of Manager cannot be thrown out on the ground that there was no authorisation in his favour prior to filing of the complaint.It is incumbent on the Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses present. in addition to cheque amount .Churiwal & Anr.Complaint filed on 24.).Held.D..200 Cr.) 0109 : 1999 (3) CTC 0145 #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Lucas TVS Ltd. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 397 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0739 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0109 : 1999 (3) CTC 0145 #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2000(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 268 (S.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0275 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 213 (P&H) : 1999 (1) AIJ 0552 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Respondents Nos. 141-. 1881.. there is no evidence to show that at the time of commission of offence they were incharge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company .) 0109 : 1999 (3) CTC 0145 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. complaint is barred by limitation . (Kiran Overseas Exports Ltd. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 397 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0739 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Notice .Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a .On the date fixed for appearance of accused.Cause of action can arise only once . (Modern Denim Ltd. 1881. 138. complaint against such Directors quashed. (Modern Denim Ltd. if any. 1881.Magistrate did not exercise the jurisdiction in a judicial manner. & Ors.Except for the bald statement that they are Directors.Notice . Vs Lucas TVS Ltd.Directors .1997 . 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 36 (P&H) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.e. Vs Lucas TVS Ltd. (Criminal Procedure Code.There is no distinction between civil and criminal law as far as authorisation or power of attorney is concerned . 138-.) 181 : 2000(2) SCC 380 #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Order set aside . 138-.Dismissal in default .). 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 397 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0739 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. interest.) 0780 : 2000(2) MH..Dishonour of cheque . to satisfy himself as to the veracity of the complainant .Cheque issued by Respondent No.1997 i. 1881.) 0109 : 1999 (3) CTC 0145 #11: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Amounts to proper and valid service. are separately specified .11. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 386 (S. after filing the complaint ..Company .). 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 360 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0268 : 2000(1) KLT 100 : 2001 BANK J 633 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.complainant is necessary .C. 138.. nothing was to be done by petitioner when petitioner was duly represented by Advocate .Authorisation .Demand of interest.`Stop payment' .Notice will not be invalid if break up of the claim i. S.Dispensation of taking sworn statement will be in contravention of S. Vs Banaras State Bank Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . 3436 #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. Vs M/s Bushan Steels and Strips Ltd. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 548 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0138 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL. 139-..No criminal offence against `A' and `D' is made out ..).Mere presentation or pendency of insolvency petition does not disentitle the complainant to approach the Criminal Court seeking for punishment to the accused for the offence already committed.C. 1881. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 540 (MADRAS) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0094 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0775 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Mal Reddy).Trial commenced and one P.P.Notice should only be in writing.Dishonour of cheque .). 138-. (Adril D'Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd.Complaint filed after third dishonour of cheque . there was no existing liability .Loan taken of Rs. 138-.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0471 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.On repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards discharge of loan amount .). (Kalyani Refineries Ltd.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.138 cheques should have been drawn by drawer having legally enforceable liability in favour of payee and further cheques should have been drawn on an account maintained by drawer.Notice .J.Ganapathy Vs A. examined . Vs Banaras State Bank Ltd.Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque.) 0375 #22: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. once trial has commenced.Even if the cheque is issued as security or in discharge of liability of any other person.Starting date of period of 15 days is the date of receipt of notice by the drawer. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0433 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0133 : 1998 CRL.Means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited Vs M. 1881.) 0578 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0120 : 1999 CRL.).) 0124 : 1999 CRL. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 548 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0138 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL. (Adril D'Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd.) 0557 #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.One `D' owed legal liability towards `A' . 138-.) 0375 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Complaint quashed .Notice .Notice . 1881. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 548 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0138 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL. 138-.J. it amounts to a liability which has been undertaken by the drawer of the cheque. 1881. 138-.Dadia Vs State of Maharasthra).Complaint .) 0351 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 463 (MADRAS) : 1999 .) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0471 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.Cheque dishonoured .Criminal complaint quashed .Insolvency petition . 1881. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 580 (P&H) : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.2001 (SUPP.presumption under Section 139 must follow . 1881. L..`Debt or other liability' . (P. (Adril D'Couth Vs Premier Auto Electric Ltd.Marimuthu Pillay).).Further held for constituting offence under S..P..J. 138-.. (Mahendra A.`D' drawing cheques in favour of `B' in discharge of his own liability towards `A' . 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.).30 lakhs and promissory note executed . 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (MADRAS) .. 2933 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..W.No form of notice is prescribed .) 0578 #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Trial Court cannot discharge the accused under Section 245 Cr. 4361 : 1999 (5) BCR 0124 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Complaint should be filed within one month of receipt of notice by the drawer .Notice sent but no complaint filed .T.Merely because the drawer issues a notice to the drawee or to the Bank for stoppage of the payment it will not preclude an action under Section 138 of the Act by the drawee or the holder of a cheque in due course.P.Drawee is required to send 15 days notice to drawer demanding payment .`D' has no legal liability towards `B' . L. (C.`A' is not liable as cheques were not issued by him .Cheque dishonoured .) ISJ (BANKING) 0240 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0767 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 1881.Cause of action arises only once when first notice is sent.Amount not paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding . (Kalyani Refineries Ltd.Cheque issued as a security to make payment of the liability of another company .One `A' owed legal liability towards `B' . L.) 0375 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Thangaraj Vs Murugesan).It is for accused to rebut presumption contained in S.`Debt or other liability' . 138. (M/s Mahaplasto Ltd. Complaint without signatures .).Complaint returned .. (Subhash Kumar Vs .Dishonour of cheque ...P. and as to what functions he was assigned in the affairs of the Company and whether those functions could be considered sufficient to hold that he was in-charge of the affairs of the company are matters which have to be gone into during the trial.). 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (ALLAHABAD) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (K. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 574 (RAJASTHAN) #25: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.141 of the Act. 1881. 1881.C. Vs State of Raj.) 0058 #7: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.468). Vs State of A.Notice . 1881.Cheque .).Should be sent to the drawer of the cheque and not to all the persons who can be deemed to be liable apart from the drawer of the cheque by virtue of the provision in S. 1881.C.Payment stopped on the ground that cheques were not supported by consideration .138 of the Act . 138.C.If tender of the notice by the postman at the address of the accused is proved.I. & Anr. (Subhash Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan). 142-.190(1)(a) Cr.Abdul Khuthoos Vs M/s Ganesh & Coy Oil Mills).Ltd.Summoning order .) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0231 : 2000(2) CRIMES 354 #4: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0231 : 2000(2) CRIMES 354 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Criminal Procedure Code. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670 (A.Pannir Selvam Vs M.. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 695 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0535 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.. (Bupinder Lima & Ors.Burden of proof is on accused that cheques were not supported by consideration.Company . 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 574 (RAJASTHAN) #24: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999 (SUPPL..George Vs Muhammed Master).Complaint with signatures of complainant represented . 138. the general provisions of S.M. & Anr.Not personally served on the accused Postal endorsement that addressee not available .P. & Ors. and it is established that the notice could not be personally served due to wilful default or deliberate evasion of the accused. 138-.Legal Representatives cannot be prosecuted for offence committed by deceased drawer under S.Cheque .Complaint when represented was not within time of accrual of cause of action .Notice .) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (KERALA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.468 Cr.#23: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. 138-.It is purely a question of fact which can be investigated during the trial of the case as to whether the notice was actually taken by the Postal department to the accused and they evaded the service of the notice . by Public Prosecutor & Anr. 1881. & Anr.D. 138. 141-. 138-.Proceedings quashed.Cognizance Initial stage at which Magistrate is required to apply his mind to allegations of compliant arises as and when an opportunity arises keeping in view provisions of S. (K. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (A. rep. Vs State of Raj.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0154 : 1999(4) ALL MR 20 #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Debt and liability . & Anr. 142-.Proceedings quashed. 138-. (S. regarding limitation not applicable.Limitation Limitation to file complaint is one month from accrual of cause of action . (K.Person incharge of Company .P.P.Under Section 139 it has to be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of debt or other liability . 1881.Recall .Company . and after taking cognizance by Magistrate. 138-. 1881. S.Complaint .Ltd.T.Pannir Selvam Vs M.). (M/s Binani Udyog & Anr.).P. then the same may constitute 'receipt of notice'.). 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (MADRAS) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Binani Udyog & Anr. 1881.. 1881.Whether the person in question was really in-charge of the affairs of the company and was responsible to the affairs of the Company or not.This being a special provision.Dishonoured .P.Dishonoured .Goel Vs State of U.. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (A.C. 1973.P..A summoning order cannot be recalled by the Court issuing it on the basis of probabilities and on the basis of the version given by the accused in his objection.K.M. (M.Notice . the same enables him to embark on an enquiry under provisions of Chapter XV of Criminal Procedure Code and not otherwise.As it is not the case of the accused that the address recorded on the notice is incorrect or that his establishment was closed during those days as such there is no ground to interfere with order taking cognizance and refusing to drop proceedings. 139-.T.Complaint shall be deemed to be filed when represented with signatures .A... It is contented that 9 cheques in all were given and whole of the amount was then paid and the receipts have been issued by the Company . (Anas Industries Vs Suresh Bafna). 1881.Amount alleged.P. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 701 (MADRAS) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0532 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999 (SUPPL.S.Be reckoned according to British Calendar .) #16: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Corporation and State).Complaint is maintainable .Pleadings .Chopra Vs State & Anr.No error on part of Magistrate in proceeding with case .) CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (MADRAS) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 141-.George Vs Muhammed Master). 1999 (SUPPL.State of Rajasthan). 1881. (Pankaj Mehra Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.Notice period of 15 days ends on 15. 138-.Cheque presented again and dishonoured . (PGM Spinning Ltd. 1999 (SUPPL. Vs M/s U.Sole proprietorship concern is not a judicial person to come under Criminal Prosecution . (Saravanan Vs G.Year and month .Company .1997 .The fact that they ceased to be Directors is a matter to be decided during trial . 138-.2. 1881.) 0058 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque ..Complaint filed against firm instead of proprietor .M.Notice not given .2.Company . 138-. (Bharat Kumar Modi & Ors. but explained that it was only partial payment of debt Complainant not prepared to withdraw case ..e. & Ors.) 0819 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.F.No liability .Accused can resummon complainant for cross-examining him on point of compromise and amount paid. Vs M/s Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. 1881.Company cannot avert its liability on mere ground that winding up petition was presented prior to company being called upon to pay amount of cheque.Specific allegations in the complaint against A-2 to A-6 that they were Directors at the time of issuing cheques . 138-. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 695 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0535 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. admitted to be received.C.Period of one month for making complaint starts from the next day i.) CIVIL COURT CASES 154 (RAJASTHAN) #17: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.1997 Complaint even if filed on 15.1.. & Ors. 138.F. 138-.There is no necessity of having an averment in the complaint that cheques were dishonoured for the reason that there was no sufficient amount in the account of the respondent.This is a matter which is purely factual and on this ground the complaint cannot be quashed.M. (PGM Spinning Ltd. 1881.1996 received by petitioners on 31. 138-.30 days not to be taken as equivalent to a month .) CIVIL COURT CASES 152 (A.Sampath). 1881.1. the complainant could not be compelled to add the firm as accused.) 0602 : 2000(2) SCC 756 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (V.).P.) 0486 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..`Payment stopped' ..). 1999 (SUPPL.Sole proprietorship concern . 141-..The accused have to undergo trial and prove the documents on which they rely upon. 138-.E. 138.. 138-.Complaint against accused only without impleading the firm ..1997 is not barred by time. 1881.Complaint filed on 14.I.1996 .) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (KERALA) #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.In the instant case notice issued on 30.Ltd..Matter alleged to be compromised .Cheque issued by Company Dishonour of cheque .).Cheque dishonoured .Company .Unless it is established that the firm alone was liable to discharge the liability.Corporation and State). & Anr. (K.Receipt of notice by any other person may not be acceptable and valid acknowledgment of notice .) : 2000(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 323 (S.1997 would be within time .) CIVIL COURT CASES 152 (A..Notice given only after cheque dishonoured second time Complaint validly instituted. India Pvt.Prosecution of signatory of the cheque without impleading the Company - . 16.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0256 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.).Case not compoundable .C. (DSA Engineers (Bombay) & Ors.Complaint is liable to be quashed.) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Partnership firm . 1999 (SUPPL. & Ors. Vs A.P. 1999 (SUPPL. 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 36 (A.S. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 591 (S.P.12. Vs A.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.12.P. therefore they are not entitled to be discharged. 138-. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (MADRAS) #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs M/s U. (Marimuthu Vs Arumugam).) CIVIL COURT CASES 155 (CALCUTTA) #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1881..) CIVIL COURT CASES 155 (CALCUTTA) #19: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . & Anr..Arises on expiry of 15 days from date of receipt of notice by the accused.Provisions in Insolvency Act apply only to civil proceedings and as against property of insolvent and not with regard to criminal proceedings.No intimation to the Bank to stop the payment of the cheque as it had been stolen .Even if a cheque is dishonoured because of `Stop payment' instructions to the Bank. still S.Abdul Khuthoos Vs M/s Ganesh & Coy Oil Mills).Mohta). 1881. 1999 (SUPPL.K.Stay of criminal case during pendency of civil suit . & Anr. 1881.E. 138-..Saraswathi Vs V. 1881.) CIVIL COURT CASES 594 (MADRAS) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Prior to that accused filed a civil suit for recovery of their dues against the complainant and the matter involved in the civil suit and the complaint is similar .No ground to quash the complaint .Protection given under Sections 29 and 31 of Provincial Insolvency Act is applicable to debtor in respect of civil detention and civil arrest alone.Accused declared insolvent by Insolvency Court . 1881.Santhanam).) CIVIL COURT CASES 155 (CALCUTTA) #18: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Insolvency proceedings .Compromise . 142.).Mohta). 1999 (SUPPL. Vs M/s U.Record of theft thus not relevant for trial of offence under S. 138-. (B. 1881.Offence under S. (DSA Engineers (Bombay) & Ors. 138-.245 Cr.138 of the Act.Jurisdiction . 1999 (SUPPL.M.C.Ltd.Accused agreeing to pay the amount with interest .). (Rabin Jhunjhunwala Vs L.M.E.Santhanam). 138-. 1881. 138-.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Dishonour of cheque During pendency of insolvency proceedings accused is not absolved from criminal liability under S..Stop payment . 1881.P.The complainant may withdraw the complaint in view of the compromise or the Court may show leniency but it cannot be stated that the offence was not made out. that too.Cause of action ..There is no provision for the summons cases to file an application for discharge under S.Mohta).) CIVIL COURT CASES 227 (MADRAS) #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Seven days notice given demanding payment but complaint filed after expiry of 15 days .C.Kannan Vs B.138 gets attracted..Notice . 1999 (SUPPL. 1999 (SUPPL.Mehtha Vs Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd. (Rabin Jhunjhunwala Vs L. 138-. 1999 (SUPPL.C.138 is not wiped out once it was complete .Contention of accused that he had not taken any loan and cheque in fact was stolen .Balakrishnan). India Pvt.Dishonour of cheque . (Bharath N.Cheque drawn on Calcutta Bank Complaint filed at place `S' where complainant resides .K.There is no bar in Negotiable Instruments Act or Insolvency Act ..).138 even if the accused was declared insolvent .Mehtha Vs Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd.No ground to quash the proceedings.Kannan Vs B. 1881.A. 1881. (M.) CIVIL COURT CASES 260 (MADRAS) . 138-.Notice is valid. 1999 (SUPPL.Insolvent .Ltd.Held.Trial of criminal cases cannot be stayed only for the reason that a civil suit involving identical dispute is pending between the parties .. 138-. after all the witnesses have been examined. India Pvt.Must be in writing and signed by the complainant.) CIVIL COURT CASES 260 (MADRAS) #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999 (SUPPL.).Complaint filed . 138-. Court at place `S' has the jurisdiction.) CIVIL COURT CASES 101 (MADRAS) #25: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999 (SUPPL. (Bharath N. (Mrs. (Rabin Jhunjhunwala Vs L. 1999 (SUPPL.As no special circumstances exist in the instant case as such no valid ground exist for stay of criminal proceedings.Complaint u/s 138 against accused is maintainable . (B.Complaint . (DSA Engineers (Bombay) & Ors. 138-.) CIVIL COURT CASES 227 (MADRAS) #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.K. 1881. 1999 (SUPPL. Held.Rajender Vs State of A.Petitioner was former Managing Director of `M/s K. 1881.Point to be decided at trial.Company .Cheque issued by firm `M/s Oswal Cotton Company' .). (S.Company .).) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (A. (John Vs George Jacob).Addressed to accused on his correct address returned unserved after waiting for seven days .) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (A.) #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Held.P. 1999 (SUPPL. (M/s M.) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.The law permits the plaintiff to take out both Civil and Criminal proceedings .Partnership firm .).P.Complaint quashed. (P.Complaint against petitioner quashed.). 138-. Company issuing cheque on behalf of Company .Both remedies are independent of each other ..Ayyappa).It is obligatory on the part of the debtor to find creditor where he is.Notice . (M..) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (CALCUTTA) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that Manager was neither drawee nor holder in due course .Petitioner who is a partner of the firm arrayed as an accused by virtue of the provision of S.Complaint against signatory only without impleading Company . 1881.#4: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Verendra Kumar Vs M/s Sri Aashraya Makers & Anr..) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (CALCUTTA) #5: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Vijaykumar B.) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (P&H) . 1881. 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (A. 141-.W.Summary suit for recovery of money due in respect of dishonoured cheque .V. 138-. 1881.P. though the words `in writing' do not find in that proviso at that context. 138-.) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 138-.Mohan Babu & Anr.P.Jurisdiction . (M/s M.Cheque dishonoured Notice to the firm demanding payment . (D. 1999 (SUPPL.Thus passing of a decree will not affect the outcome of criminal trial .P. 138. 1881.. on facts and also on law it should be deemed that the notice intimating the dishonour of cheque is served on the accused.Dishonour of cheque . 1999 (SUPPL.P. notice to the company is sufficient compliance of S.Similarly the conviction and grant of compensation will not prevent the Civil Court from passing decree in favour of the plaintiff. 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 315 (MADRAS) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.B. 1881.B.Dishonour of cheque ...Officer of Quasi Govt.Yarns Limited' .Complaint filed by Manager of the Company .Ramaswamy Vs P.What the Legislature intended is the receipt of information in writing and not a mere oral information.Both the firms alleged to have business relations and cheque alleged to be issued by Oswal Company on behalf of K.Agarwal Vs Govindbhai Dayal Mange & Anr..141 of the Act . 138-. 141-. (Thapar Milk Products Vs Bharat Diary Udyog)..Part payment made . 141-. 1999 (SUPPL. 1881. 1881.) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Industries Vs Gajanand Khandelwal).No rebuttal evidence on behalf of the accused that he was not in the town and the postal endorsement is incorrect . 1999 (SUPPL.P. 1999 (SUPPL.Section imposes a criminal liability of a person who draws the cheque and such person alone can be convicted and sentenced in those proceedings . it is not necessary that in all cases the Magistrate should take evidence before he frames the charge.No ground to quash the complaint .Ramasamy Vs T..Natrajan Vs M/s Goyal Trading Company & Ors.The Court from where the notice of demand was sent has the jurisdiction .) CIVIL COURT CASES 319 (KERALA) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) CIVIL COURT CASES 367 (BOMBAY) #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).1 in his evidence categorically stated that in all those seven days the respondent was very much in the town and he managed to send back the registered letter unserved on him . 1999 (SUPPL.No ground to quash the complaint .138 and no separate notice need be given to all the accused.Complaint is not maintainable .Factual points to be decided by trial Court. 1881.V Yarns Limited .No evidence taken before framing charge . 1881..Both proceedings can be continued simultaneously .Industries Vs Gajanand Khandelwal).Contention that notice not given to the petitioner .K.`Receipt of information' . 138. 1999 (SUPPL. 138. 138-. 138-.Said questions have to be gone into during trial.12.).73 Evidence Act to compare the signatures.69 of the Partnership Act is applicable only to cases involving civil rights and it has no application to criminal cases.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Accused convicted and fine also imposed .There is no provision in the Negotiable Instruments Act for recovery of fine .Quashing of complaint . 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 17 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0701 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 138-. L..Dishonour of cheque .Complaint Magistrate summoning some accused persons and declining to summon others .Payee came to know about dishonour of cheque on 20. 3372 #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ramnath Vs Jagdish Prasad Garg).Complainant made payment to third person on behalf of accused to discharge loan of accused .) 0044 : 1999 (97) COMP.) 0196 #17: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .) 0040 : 1999 CRL.Belated revision to enhance sentence not tenable. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 17 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0701 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0271 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL. 138-.1. 1881.It is sufficient if the accused stated it in the statement u/s 313 Cr. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 97 (MADRAS) : 1999 . 1881.2001 (SUPP.Plea of accused that cheque was forged .) 0229 #18: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It is not necessary for the accused to file a petition before the Court for sending the disputed cheque for comparison by an expert . 1881. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. depending upon proof . 1881.Petition dismissed.2001 (SUPP. Ghaziabad Vs Harbhajan Singh & Ors.. 142-.) ISJ (BANKING) 0753 #22: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J.S.Accused is legally liable to pay the amount to complainant.1990..) 0040 : 1999 CRL..Accused convicted and sentenced . 138-.Legal liability . L.) 0271 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.It is permissible for Court under S.2001 (SUPP. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .1.138 is made out against the accused . (Pandian Vs Sowrirajan). 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 241 (A. S. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 97 (MADRAS) : 1999 ..e.) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0331 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Not a ground for quashing the proceedings .Complaint against several persons .R. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 45 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0441 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Accused served the sentence but unable to deposit amount of fine .Dishonour of cheque .Plea of petitioner that his signature on the cheque obtained by coercion .P.Subject to revisional jurisdiction of High Court.Notice .#14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Order declining to summon . Ghaziabad Vs Harbhajan Singh & Ors.Cheque dishonoured ... CASES 0881 #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT . 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 97 (MADRAS) : 1999 .In the instant case it is clear from the material on record that there was sufficient material to proceed against the persons who were declined to be summoned . not necessary to go in detailed discussion of merits or demerits of case .C.. (Partnership Act.Dishonour of cheque .P.).1989 but written information received from bank on 6.Validity . (Steel Authority of India.).. 138. (K.Complaint by unregistered partnership firm .Magistrate summoning some but declining to summon others . 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 45 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0441 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Limitation . 138-.The effect of non registration of the partnership firm under S. 1881. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 43 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0610 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Final order . (Pandian Vs Sowrirajan). (Abdul Gafoor Vs Abdurahiman).At stage of issuing process. 6.) ISJ (BANKING) 0753 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Impugned order of Magistrate wholly illegal and not at all sustainable.P.1990 Period of 15 days for sending notice will commence from date of written information from the bank i.) ISJ (BANKING) 0753 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Abdul Gafoor Vs Abdurahiman).Accused did not examine expert witness .) 0196 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Prasada Rao Vs Gadey Murali Krishna & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 1881.Complainant to file civil suit. 1932.Offence under S.) 0447 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.J.Further the petitioner issued notice to respondent to return the cheque for various reasons mentioned in the notice .Accused issued cheque in favour of complainant . (Steel Authority of India.69(2). 138-. (John Vs George Jacob). (Pandian Vs Sowrirajan). 1881. 3372 #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint . 138-.Notice .Complaint registered and process issued .Legal debt and liability . 1881. (P. the complaint would become premature and the proceedings would be vitiated.) 0034 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0182 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).P.S. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 279 (MADRAS) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0329 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL. (V. notice is not bad .Mentioning of 15 days' time for payment is not necessary in the notice. CASES 0250 : 1999(4) AD (DELHI) 385 : 80(1999) DLT 654 : 1999(2) JCC 383 : 2000(2) CRIMES 374 #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-. 138-.Order passed by Magistrate must be construed as order of acquittal under S. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 369 (BOMBAY) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0353 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Partnership firm .Manikumar Vs Krishna Reddy). (P.) 0355 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.Manikumar Vs Krishna Reddy). 1881..) 0099 : 1998 (4) ALD 0365 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.54 of Transfer of Property act . 1881.Notice .) 0182 #4: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.378(5).) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 366 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0048 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 138-.Act of complainant amounted to sale of property within meaning of S. Vs Xedd Finance and Investments Pvt.. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (DELHI) : 1996 ..) 0182 #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It would be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of liability and not as security. 138-.) 0466 : 1999 (3) KLT 0207 : 1999 (2) KLJ 0646 #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Accused put in possession of land and given Power of Attorney to do all acts and deeds in respect of land . 1881. 138-.Cheque can be presented within six months either with the payee's bank or drawer's bank.If complaint is filed before the expiry of the fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0503 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 138-.V. 139-.Company .Dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds . 138-.Notice need not to be given to each and every partner .On complainant's absence Court dismissed complaint and discharged the accused .) 0034 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.P.Manikumar Vs Krishna Reddy). then.. 1881.) 0734 : 1999(3) CRIMES 97 : 1999 CRL. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0503 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Complaint against partnership firm and its two partners . 138. Vs Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd.V.Limitation Starting point .) 0034 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.). (P.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (A.Unless there are allegations in the . 138.Every person who is incharge of and is responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly .99 (SUPP.No illegality in summoning the partners as it is asserted in the complaint that both the partners are responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. 1881..V. (G.Accused could have paid cheque amount only.L.Merely because interest is claimed. (Jossy Kondody Vs Chacko Thomas). 1881..Interest demanded .Notice sent to partnership firm . (Jain Associates Vs Deepak Chawdhery & Co.Sale transaction not completed . refusing interest. 1881. (Raja Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1881.In such case remedy is to file appeal under S. 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (MADRAS) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque presented to payee's bank within six months but cheque presented to drawer's bank after six months .R.Shah). & Ors.256(1) and not of discharge .Dishonour of cheque .).138 .Negotiable Instruments Act.S.).Interest claimed .Complaint . as it is not contemplated in the Section.Modi & Anr. 1881. LJ 2741 #25: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Ltd. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0503 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL..Notice .R..The period of one month for filing the complaint has to be reckoned from the date immediately following the date on which the period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice by the drawer expired. (ABK Publications Ltd..Dishonour of cheque .Agreement to sell Accused making part payment and issuing cheques of balance consideration .R.) ISJ (BANKING) 0723 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0391 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.Sampath Vs Praveen Chandra V.Demand notice not invalid merely because the interest amount has been added.) 0170 : 1998 (2) ALD (CRL.Accused guilty of offence under S.S.) 0645 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. Dishonour of cheque .Registered cover received back without any postal endorsement .C.).S.) 0170 : 1998 (2) ALD (CRL..L.114 Illustration (b) of Evidence Act unless and until it is proved that the postal communication was disrupted in any manner .There is presumption of service under S. to alleviate the grievance of the complainant.357(3) Cr.P.C.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S. S.114 Illustration (b). 1881.Modi & Anr. CASES 0250 : 1999(4) AD (DELHI) 385 : 80(1999) DLT 654 : 1999(2) JCC 383 : 2000(2) CRIMES 374 #14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (K.P. L. 138-.) 0099 : 1998 (4) ALD 0365 #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Cognizance of offence Limitation . 138-.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.The accused would be in a position to examine the witness only if the documents asked for in the petition are produced .) 0355 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.Accused seeking production of accounts in possession of complainant . Vs Xedd Finance and Investments Pvt.).Presumption is rebuttable .) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.) 0415 : 1999 (2) ALT (CRL.C.).Trial Court directed to permit the accused to examine the witnesses and summon the documents. 1881.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S. (Sri Murugan Agencies Vs M/s Khaitan and Company)..) 0645 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL.P.J.Giving of notice is not the same as receipt of notice .311 Cr.Complainant can choose any one of those Courts having jurisdiction over any one of the local areas within the territorial limits of which any one of those five acts was done.When notice is returned unclaimed by sender it would amount to receipt of notice .`Giving of notice' and `Receipt of notice' .complaint that the Directors or partners of a company or firm are also incharge and responsible for the management of the business of the company or firm they are not liable to be prosecuted.Jurisdiction . (M/s Nakoda Laminators Vs State of Rajasthan). 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (DELHI) : 1996 . 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (A.In such a case reckoning of 15 days would start running from date of return of notice.. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.Components of the offence are (1) Drawing of the cheque (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount (5) Failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice .). (Evidence Act. 1881.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.5000/. 138-. 1881. 138-.Period of 30 days has been prescribed for filing the complaint in Court and not for taking cognizance of the offence by the Magistrate. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.C.. Magistrate can resort to S. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI. (K. 1872.Notice .Judicial Magistrate of First Class trying a case under S.C.138 cannot impose a fine exceeding Rs.Notice sent through UPC not received back .) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI. (Jain Associates Vs Deepak Chawdhery & Co.Debt or other liability . (K.) 0364 : 1998 CRL. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 3525 .Ltd.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI. 138-.Notice .) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.) 0319 #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.99 (SUPP.).Sent as per registered post as well as Under Certificate of Posting (UPC) . 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (MADRAS) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0166 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.This is a question which is to be decided after recording evidence in the proceedings.... contemplates that the Court can summon any person as a witness or examine any person at any stage of the proceedings .Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL.C.P. (G. 1881. 1881.High Court while convicting accused in the same case cannot impose fine exceeding the said limit .) ISJ (BANKING) 0723 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0391 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.However. & Ors. (Bhavesh Bharatbhai Mehta & Ors. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (GUJARAT) #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0664 : 1999 (98) COMP.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 610 (S.Notice .Not correct .) 0051 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.Cheque could be represented demanding drawer to arrange for payment .#15: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1881.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. rather it was for the drawer to say that it was not a valid notice and to get the complaint dismissed . 141-.) 0664 : 1999 (98) COMP. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 413 (DELHI) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0440 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.C. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 421 (A. 1881.A.) 0484 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. payment of cheque not made and complaint filed .Cheque issued by . CASES 0219 #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). it cannot be said that instrument of cheque loses its character and it becomes a bill of exchange not payable on demand.) 0648 : 1999(2) MPLJ 0024 : 1999(2) CTC 0611 : 1999(8) SCC 221 : AIR 1999 SC 3607 : 1999 CRI LJ 4571 : 1999 SCC(CRI. (V.Held.C. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 421 (A. 138-.Cheque and bill of exchange .Rather it is for the drawer to say that it is not a valid notice and to get the complaint dismissed on this ground . on ground that there was no demand for money and hence quashed proceedings .Provision of S. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors. notice issued. 1881.Notice . dishonoured.A drawer can still pay the money as demanded on receipt of the notice served by the holder in due course.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act do not violate Articles 19 and 21 of Constitution of India.Noori Vs Union of India). (M/s Kapoor Brothers Roller Floor Mills Vs M/s Jyoti Solvex and Refinery (P) Ltd. (Yoginder Kumar Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma).Every partner incharge and responsible for conduct of firm is guilty .Drawee cannot say that it is not a valid notice . CASES 0219 #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Central Bank of India & Anr.P. 1950.Cheque again presented.Dishonour of cheque .Noori Vs Union of India).Notice is valid.No bank official examined during preliminary evidence Complainant seeking permission to examine bank official to get information of date which is lying in obscurity .Every partner need not to be given notice .Partnership firm . 138.Telegraphic notice sent demanding payment . Articles 19 & 21) (V..Evidence to clear this obscurity essential to be examined . 1881.Impugned order passed by Magistrate dismissing complaint set aside.Payment of cheque not made . CASES 0038 #20: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0609 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0382 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 413 (DELHI) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0440 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL. 138..) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 138-.Notice to firm is sufficient as no person other than the drawer of the cheque is required to be given notice.) 0639 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL.Complaint not filed .Holder of cheque has legal right to payment of money on demand .P. 1881.Notice valid.Notice . CASES 0038 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Issued but not within 15 days . Vs M/s Saxons Farms & Ors..). complaint is abuse of process of law as such quashed.Cause of action had accrued on non receipt of the cheque amount on service of first notice .There was demand in notice .. (Yoginder Kumar Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma).Dishonour of cheque .On dishonour of cheque. CASES 0219 #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Such person is presumed to have knowledge about the day to day business of the firm .It is not for the drawee to say that it was not a valid notice.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0433 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0147 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.Accused ordered to be put on trial .Notice . 138-.Nothing in preliminary evidence to show as to when information from Bank as to dishonour of cheque received and the date when the cheque was presented to the payee bank Trial Court dismissed the complaint . 1881.Drawer could have paid through bank or directly ..Not issued within 15 days . 1881.) 1411 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Constitution of India.) 0051 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL..Notice . (Yoginder Kumar Sharma Vs Ashok Kumar Sharma)..A. 138-. 138-.).) 0639 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. 138-..Dishonour of cheque . 141-.) 0639 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 471 (S.High Court holding that there was no proper notice. 138-.P.Last line of notice reads thus 'Kindly arrange to make payment to avoid unpleasant action of my client' . 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 413 (DELHI) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0440 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (RAJASTHAN) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0024 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0755 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Insufficient funds .) 0364 : 1998 CRL. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption.C..) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.S.Managing Director of Company .) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL. (M/s Nakoda Laminators Vs State of Rajasthan).A copy of statutory notice .No ground to proceed against such partner. (K.Complaint . 139.Partnership firm .Signature on the cheque admitted . 138-. Vs Baladhandapani). 3525 #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Notice not issued within 15 days of the receipt of information from the Bank and drawer not afforded an opportunity to make payment of the cheque . 118-. 138. 138-. 3525 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears .. 138-.Cheque .. 138-.J.Liable to be quashed.Cheque is required to be presented at paying bank within six months or period of validity which is earlier .Sent as per registered post . knowledge and connivance of Directors .There is nothing in the complaint in rope in the 2nd accused.Quashing Contention of petitioner that payments were made towards the amount payable under cheques .Proceedings against Directors .Reached paying bank late by 4 days i. after six months period was over Cheque became a stale cheque . 138-.e.Proof It is sufficient to summon a copy of the relevant account . petitioner discharged. (M.Complaint quashed. 1881.Vague allegations that cheques were issued with consent. L.. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 649 (GUJARAT) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0526 : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (GUJARAT) 0627 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0326 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0004 #24: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.) 0115 : 1999 CRL.. L. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 138-. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 176 (MADRAS) #2: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0005 : 1999 (3) KLT 0499 #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.Company .).) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI. 1881..) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability . 3362 #4: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.In the complaint it is not alleged that accused 2 and 3 continued to be in service of the company .Held.Sleeping partner . 138-.Notice . it would be for the trial Court to decide the question of payment at appropriate stage in accordance with law .Continuance of the proceedings is an abuse of the process of the Court.) 0364 : 1998 CRL.P. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (A.Not stated that they were in any manner engaged in the administration and management of the company . (Ganesh Das Vs Narendra Kumar). 1881.J. (M/s Nakoda Laminators Vs State of Rajasthan). 1881. L.Dishonour of cheque .Inbarajan & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .P.) 0764 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Cheque .Presented to collecting bank on the last day of six months . 1881. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 679 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0365 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.Dishonour of cheque ..Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.Nothing on record to suggest that such partner was incharge of the business of the company or was in any manner responsible for the conduct of business of company and there is no evidence to show that such partner was responsible in any manner for the alleged offence .No allegations in the complaint that Directors of the Company were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of the alleged commission of the offence . (P.) 0460 : 1999 (3) GLR 2096 : 1999(3) CRIMES 252 : 2000 CRI LJ 1152 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J.Neither unserved postal cover nor acknowledgment received back by sender .Ravinder Reddy Vs M/s NCC Finance Ltd. 1881. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S. 1881.Unnecessary summoning of Bank Managers deprecated.).. (Arunbhai Nilkanthrai Nanavati Vs Jayaben Prahladbhai).Cannot be said that Directors were actually incharge and responsible for conduct of business .Proceedings pending in trial Court cannot be quashed on this basis. (Kamalam Vs State of Kerala). ). (Kumaresan Vs Girirajan)..P. Vs Mac Industries Ltd.No notice as required given to company .Cheque dishonoured . 138-. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. CASES 0481 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0532 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Cheque drawn by company .Magistrate ought to have waited for the .Complaint filed on 25.Cheque again dishonoured .). 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 166 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0132 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (MADRAS) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) ISJ (BANKING) 0201 #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (A. 3525 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.4.Pleading .However. it cannot be said that as complaint against company for want of notice is not maintainable as such complaint against Director is also not maintainable.filed alongwith the complaint .1994 .J.) 0411 : 1999 (98) COMP.Limitation . 1881.). & Anr. 1881.).2001 (SUPP.An undated cheque handed over as security for the purpose of the contract .Order of dismissal set aside .Dishonour of cheque .1994 and on the same day notice issued . Vs Kalleppuram Metals). 0329 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. but cannot exercise this power in disposal oriented spirit and disposal oriented statistics. CASES 0321 : 1999 CRL.There was no debt or liability when cheque was handed over to the drawee.`Debt or other liability' .138 does not apply . 138-.) 0238 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0782 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Order of Magistrate set aside ..Complaint under section 138 against company is not maintainable . Vs M/s Sri Lakshmi Financiers & Anr.) 0364 : 1998 CRL.Held.Provisions of S. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (GUJARAT) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (GUJARAT) 0177 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0210 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. 138.Notice given to Director of the Company .Srikanth & Ors.S.Complaint cannot be quashed for want of notice at this stage.138 of the Act then the complaint cannot be thrown or quashed at the threshold.) 0514 : 1999 (5) BCR 0308 #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cause of action has arisen only on the first notice. no offence is made out under S. (M/s Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. (Anchor Capitals of India Ltd. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (A.Notice issued .) 0407 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0122 : 1999 (96) COMP. if the complaint and its accompaniments prima facie show the ingredients of S.Magistrate has discretion to dismiss the complaint.Cheque represented .Request to present the cheque once again .3.P. (M/s Abraham Chacko & Co. 1881.1994 . 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Absence of petitioner neither deliberate nor wilful . 138-. (M/s Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. (P. 138-. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 109 (MADRAS) : 1999(1) REC CRI R 683 : 1999(1) BANKING CASES 0298 : 2000(1) BOM CLR 564 : 1999(2) CCR 0424 : 1999 (1) CTC 0006 #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138-.Absence of averment in complaint that cheque was issued towards the discharge of whole or any part of debt or any liability .Complaint . 138-...Second notice returned with an endorsement 'always absent' . (M/s Nakoda Laminators Vs State of Rajasthan). 1881.Non appearance of complainant Dismissal of complaint .) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0215 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Held.P.Rajarathinam Vs State of Maharashtra). L.. 1881. 1881..3. (G.J. complaint is within limitation.Presumption is that the notice is deemed to have been served but it is a rebuttable presumption . (Voruganti China Gopaiah Vs M/s Godavari Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd.Subsequently complainant agreed to receive the amount in instalments .Complaint dismissed in default at early hours . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 109 (MADRAS) : 1999(1) REC CRI R 683 : 1999(1) BANKING CASES 0298 : 2000(1) BOM CLR 564 : 1999(2) CCR 0424 : 1999 (1) CTC 0006 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cause of action accrued to drawee on 25.Cheque issued ..) 0014 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 of the Act as subsequent agreement replaced the cheque.Held.1994 . 1881.Complainant absent .Means a legally enforceable debt or liability.Drawer failed to make payment upto 25.Drawer of the cheque can make payment within a period of 15 days from date of service of notice .3.Information received from Bank on 9. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 12 (KERALA) #8: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 1999 . 1881. 142-. 138-. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 599 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0039 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0188 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0845 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. Vs Mac Industries Ltd. 5. (Betco Chit Fund Vs Veekay Industries). CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. (Devendra Kumar Rai Vs Ram Gopal Rai). 138.. (Shri Vishnu Spinners Vs Sri Bhagyalakshmi Commercial Corporation). (M/s Saketh India Ltd.4 is an Executive Director of the Company .High Court modified order and Fine ordered to be paid to the complainant as compensation. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S. 138-. (Devendra Kumar Rai Vs Ram Gopal Rai).Day on which cause of action arises is to be excluded .) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 506 (S. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (A.Time limit for filing complaint would start running on the date when the notice sent by Fax reaches the drawer of the cheque. for six months and fine of Rs.Police has no right to intervene so far as this offence is concerned.It is stated in the complaint that the offence had been committed with the consent and connivance of the accused Nos..Sent by Fax .9. 141-.Dishonour of cheque . (Betco Chit Fund Vs Veekay Industries).Held.Notice .) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S. 1881..C.I. Negotiable Instruments Act is a Special Law which prescribes a special procedure and limitation. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (P&H) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0350 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0217 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0583 : 1999 CRI LJ 1349 #23: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0139 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL.Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that cheque was not issued by him . 142-. it is sufficient to make an allegation in the .P.1995 .Dishonoured .No ground to quash the proceedings. had also appeared .Offence under S. (Devendra Kumar Rai Vs Ram Gopal Rai). 1881. 138-.C. (M/s SIL Import. 1881. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0139 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL.Accused convicted and sentenced to undergo R.C. 138-. 138-.It is open for a party to given more time. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998 (2) KLT 0490 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1998 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1999 SCC (CRI) 329 : 1999(3) SCC 1 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Condonation of delay . 1881.C.Cheque .1995 and complaint filed on 15.Notice .138 is not a cognizable offence . 1881. & Ors.P.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 493 (S..2 to 4 .30 days notice demanding payment instead of 15 days . Vs M/s India Securities Ltd.C.Cheque given in favour of son . 1881. 1881.Offence u/s 138 is made out.In the instant case notice served on accused on 29. L. Bangalore). 138.Cheque dishonoured .Dishonour of cheque . Accused No.3 is the Managing Director and Accused No.Debt due to father .Company .Complaint not filed within prescribed period .Accused No. USA Vs M/s Exim Aides Silk Exporters.C.Dishonour of cheque . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 178 (P&H) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.Fine converted into Prosecution expenses as the P.J.C...Computing period of limitation .473 Cr.11.) 0448 #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.This is purely a question of fact . (Anil Bassi Vs Vishnu Dass). 138-. 138-. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0139 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL.Notice is not invalid ..) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP.). 1881.Sessions Judge ordered the release of accused on Probation . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 295 (S.Held. 138-. 1881.Legal liability .Delay cannot be condoned u/s 5 of Limitation Act or S..It amounts to compliance with the legal requirement .) 0192 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0516 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0448 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..) 0217 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0583 : 1999 CRI LJ 1349 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 000/.ordered to be paid to the complainant .2 is the Director.) 0432 : 1999(2) CTC 0354 : 1999(4) SCC 567 : 1999(2) REC CRI R 658 : (1999) 38 ALL CRI C 858 : AIR 1999 SC 1609 : 1999(2) KLT 275 #21: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0838 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. complaint filed is within time as 15 days notice period expired on 14th October and cause of action for filing complaint would arise from 15th October as such 15th October is to be excluded for counting the period of one month.complainant. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (P&H) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0350 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0217 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0583 : 1999 CRI LJ 1349 #22: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.) 0187 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 349 (A.P.In the instant case complainant stating that notice sent as per registered post as well as through certificate of posting and notice sent as per certificate of posting received by the accused .) 0460 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.e. Vs A..Bhandari & Anr. 138-. 1881.. (Francis Savio Vs State of Kerala).Question whether he had ceased to be such a person or whether he was never associated with the company in such a capacity are questions of fact which have to be decided during the trial. payment of monthly rentals . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 465 (A.P. (Francis Savio Vs State of Kerala). 1881.) 0357 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0029 : 1999 (97) COMP. 1881. (Y.) 0732 : 1998 CRL. (Naimesh P.) 0194 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL. (N. 1881. 1973.).Chitty transaction .Holder of cheque describing himself as holder in due course in the complaint .Parties requested for compounding of offence .) 0671 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.V. (Girish K.Chandra Sekhar & Ors. Vs M/s Allwyn a unit of Voltas Ltd. or whether there is a ground to presume in the entire reading of the substance of the complaint that the offence is likely to have been committed. 1881. 1881.Person in-charge and responsible for conduct of the business of the company at relevant time .Such allegation made in the complaint .204(2).P. 138-.G. L.J.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act .. 4735 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0744 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.No advantage to be given to the accused on this misdescription.) 0732 : 1998 CRL. 138-.P. (Augusty Vs Rajan).Under S.`Refer to drawer' .Held.) ISJ (BANKING) 0049 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. CASES 0092 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.Compounding of offence . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 117 (KERALA) : 1999(4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0600 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 138-.) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.Section 138 is attracted.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Chitty conducted by complainant in contravention of Chitties Act .. Vs Lakshmi Finance & Industrial Corp..138 of the Act no mode is prescribed for service of notice . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL .). 138-.Dishonour of cheque .) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0342 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.).P.. 138-.2001 (SUPP. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0342 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 342 (GUJARAT) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 138-. 1881.Not fatal.The Act does not declare the transaction illegal or unlawful or opposed to public policy..Nadarajan).Notice .) : 1999 .Aruna Devi & Anr. L. S.It is sufficient that the notice is served on the accused .This indicates that there were insufficient funds in the account of drawer . makes out an offence said to have been committed.) 0671 : 1999 (1) KLJ 0660 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Francis Savio Vs State of Kerala).In drafting a criminal complaint. 4735 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (A. or in the rules framed thereunder as to how a criminal complaint has to be drafted .Nadarajan Vs K. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (A.This is a question of fact whether the notice has been received by the accused or not .Dishonour of cheque .J.Srinivasa Reddy & Anr.On this ground complaint cannot be quashed. 138-.Company . (M/s Kusum Ingots Vs State of A.complaint with regard to the liability of the accused .) 0309 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Failure to mention the names of the witnesses and the place and date of transaction in the complaint .Cheque issued by accused in discharge of his liability in Chitty transaction . 1881. there is no specific provision either in the Criminal Procedure Code. (Criminal Procedure Code.Cheques issued in discharge of a liability i.). Ltd..All that is to be seen in the Criminal complaint is whether the entire substance of the complaint prima facie.) 0581 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.N..Chitties Act only penalises the foreman who conducts the Chitty in contravention of Chitties Act .P.Complaint cannot be thrown out on the ground that it is a civil dispute. (A.Dispute settled during the pendency of Revision and payment made .) 0152 #3: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Accused convicted Appeal dismissed .Cheques dishonoured for want of sufficient funds .) 0135 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL. in the absence of any contrary provision in the facts and circumstances of the present case there cannot be any bar for granting permission to compound the offence in the interest of substantial justice between the parties.Accused is liable under S. 138-.) 0450 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Whether they are actually liable or not will have to be considered through evidence. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 428 (KERALA) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0243 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.Pleadings .Pandya Vs State of Gujarat). Complainant did not file civil suit for recovery of amount Held.) 0396 : 1999 (97) COMP. 138.`Account closed' . Vs OK Play India Ltd.`Stop payment' . 4735 #10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. (George Vs Muhammed).It becomes a cheque on the date which is written on the said cheque and six months period has to be reckoned for the purpose of Section 138 of the Act from the said date..) 0218 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. 1881. CASES 0664 : ILR 1992 (2) KERALA 0833 #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 000/.C.Aruna Devi & Anr.V.20.Offence is made out .) 0218 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. 139-. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (KERALA) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0342 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0767 .Closure of the account would be an eventuality after the entire amount in the account is withdrawn . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (CALCUTTA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.to be paid to complainant as compensation under Section 357 Cr.In terms of the provision under Section 219(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure if a person is accused of more offences than one of the same kind committed within the space of 12 months from the first to the last of such offences may be charged with and tried at one trial for any number of them not exceeding three . 1973.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 138-.C.).Does not absolve its liability for the offence under S. 1881. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (CALCUTTA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.Contract in pursuance of which cheque issued in dispute . 138-..). 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 588 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0643 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0342 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. 000/. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Offence u/s 138 relates only to the dishonour of cheque and negligence to pay the amount of the cheque upon a subsequent statutory notice.J. Vs A..138 of the Act. 138-. 1881.Post dated cheque . 000/.) 0152 #13: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Not sufficient funds in the account .P.) 0732 : 1998 CRL. out of Rs. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. 1881. 1881.) 0218 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL..Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow and the same consequences would follow where the drawer stops the payment after issue of the cheque. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.) 0671 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505 #11: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (NEPC Micon Ltd. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 471 (S.Not necessary that bank account should be alive at the time of presentation of cheque. S. (Criminal Procedure Code.).) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999 (96) COMP.). 4735 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0581 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.That dispute to be settled by Civil Court quite different from criminal liability .Accused convicted and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.a sum of Rs. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (CALCUTTA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S. 138-.) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999 (96) COMP.J.C.138 of the Act.Dishonour of cheque . 138-. action can be initiated under S. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (A.C.) 0194 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.357) (Francis Savio Vs State of Kerala). Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . (NEPC Micon Ltd. 1881. 1881.).P.) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999 (96) COMP. (NEPC Micon Ltd. 1881.`Stop payment' .`Account closed' . Vs Magma Leasing Ltd. (M/s Kusum Ingots Vs State of A.) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.) 0732 : 1998 CRL.15.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 624 (S..) 0135 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL..C. L.).It means that there was no amount in the credit of 'that account' on the relevant date when the cheque was presented for honouring the same. & Ors.Dishonour of five cheque .It is an offence u/s 138 of the Act . L.). 1881. repelled.Srinivasa Reddy & Anr..20.One notice issued in respect of all the five cheques and one complaint filed . (Y.) 0648 : 1999 (2) MPLJ 0024 : 1999 (2) CTC 0347 : AIR 1999 SC 1952 : 1999(4) SCC 253 : 1999 CRI LJ 2883 : 1999(16) OCR 639 #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.. 138-.C. (NEPC Micon Ltd. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 465 (A. 138-.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0433 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0147 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.As there was only one statutory notice to enforce payment of the amount covered by those five cheque as such the contention of the accused that one trial court not be held. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.P.. 138-.When drawer of cheque stops payment by giving intimation to the Bank. Finance and Investments). hence quashed. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (S.Jurisdiction .Even if it is construed as a revision. it is not maintainable as it is filed beyond period of 60 days from the date of impugned order as no application has been filed u/s 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in preferring appeal. 1881..Sustainable.#18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.P.C.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 139. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.. (B.) 0383 : 1999 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL.Parties entered into hire purchase agreement at Chennai and post-dated cheques issued at Chennai .Complaint fixed for examination of complainant and his witnesses . Vs Magma Leasing Ltd. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (A.Appeal against . 138. 1881.).) 0360 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL. 139. 138-. 138-.Absence of complainant. (Meeta Rai Vs Gulshan Mahajan).Son issuing cheques in discharge of legal liability of his mother .No ground to quash the process .Dishonour of cheque . (Maruti Udyog Ltd.Loan taken by mother .Jurisdiction . CASES 0462 : 1999(3) CRIMES 621 (P&H) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138-.Lakshmaiah Vs Veeramalli Nagesh & Anr..Court within whose jurisdiction the .).P. witnesses and his counsel .) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 704 (S. 142-.Complaint dismissed . (NEPC Micon Ltd.) 0218 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 1881. 1881.No ground to quash the complaint.Even if it is construed as an appeal against order of acquittal by Magistrate. (B.138.) 0341 : 1997 CRI LJ 3616 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Son becomes liable and amount is legally enforceable debt .Complainant.).) 0754 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999 (96) COMP.P..Absence of complainant.Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that there was no legal liability to pay .).Gurappa Reddy Vs M/s A.Prosecution at Calcutta validly launched .Drawee company having its Head Office at Calcutta . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (A. 138-. .Dishonour of cheque .No criminal appeal lies against such an order .Power of attorney Payee authorising her husband through a letter to file complaint on her behalf .Legal liability to pay .Appeal against . Vs Narender & Ors.) 0341 : 1997 CRI LJ 3616 #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Held..Held. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co.Notice demanding payment issued at Calcutta . (G.Complaint . CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505 #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.No appeal lies against such an order . 138-.`Debt or other liability' . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (A.Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried.P. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 556 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0026 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.Complaint dismissed .. 1881.139. 138-.Complaint fixed for examination of complainant and his witnesses . of the nature referred to in S.C.Prima facie case against son is made out .N.). 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0455 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0609 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.Issuing of process is an interim order and not a judgment .Revision dismissed by Sessions Judge on merits .C. 1881.P.Matter kept pending till 4 p.) 0767 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0637 #23: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (CALCUTTA) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S. authority letter could not be equated with General or Special Power of Attorney . witnesses and his counsel absent .Revision dismissed by Sessions Judge on merits .Dishonour of cheque . (B.Lakshmaiah Vs Veeramalli Nagesh & Anr. for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved.Complaint not property instituted.Cheques dishonoured .Debtor should follow the creditor.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 138-. no second revision lies after the dismissal of the first one.Dishonour of cheque .) 0341 : 1997 CRI LJ 3616 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Authority letter did not state that payee would be bound by the acts of her husband .) 0360 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL. Vs OK Play India Ltd.In view of the express provision of S. witnesses and his counsel .Acquittal of accused in such circumstances by Magistrate . Calcutta Court has jurisdiction .Complaint fixed for examination of complainant and his witnesses .).. 1881.P.m.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0348 : 1999(1) SCC 113 : 2000(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 104 #25: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Lakshmaiah Vs Veeramalli Nagesh & Anr..) 0360 : 1999(2) RCR (CRL. 1881.S. a presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque. Subramanian & Ors.) 0660 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 Negotiable Instruments Act through Manager . 138-.Not necessary that a complainant should reproduce in verbatim all ingredients.). CASES 0335 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.C.) : 1999 .All the ingredients of offence need not to be stated in the complaint if factual foundation of the offence has been laid down .Notice issued .10. (Andhra Engineering Corporation Vs M/s T. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (KERALA) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0339 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0896 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 1881.138 on second dishonour.Proof of authorisation only at the time of trial. Finance Ltd.Where order of acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds and passed by totally ignoring acceptable evidence on record.) 0077 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0538 : 1999 CRL. 1999(3) CRIMES 504 : 1999 DCR 130 #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured . Finance Ltd. 141-. Vs Kamakshi Extractions & Anr. S.J.Pleadings . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (A.K. (Varghese Vs C.Part payment made before cheque presented in bank . (Agarwal Auto Traders Vs M/s Globe Tractors (Agencies)).446) (Jose Antony Vs Official Liquidator).Dishonour of cheque . 138-.. 000/-.P. 1999(3) CRIMES 504 : 1999 DCR 130 #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (K..I..Dishonour of cheque .).C.Cheque dishonoured for insufficient funds .). Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. CASES 0335 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL. 138-.P.Disputed question of fact involved to be decided by trial Court .Heavy fine reduced to Rs.Complaint under S. 1881.) 0253 : 1999 (97) COMP. (Premlata Chaddha Vs Surendra Kumar Soni). 1881.Offence by company .. L. 138-.Proceedings not to be transferred to Company Court under S. L. L.P.Complaint .2001 (SUPP.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act .P. 1956. 1032 : 1999 (5) BCR 0018 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0805 #8: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) ISJ (BANKING) 0218 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (M.No complaint filed .Company going under liquidation . (Companies Act. 138-.J.J.Conviction of accused There is no question of convicting the company .Substantive sentence of imprisonment set aside .) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.) 0255 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0055 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 650 (A. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 27 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0466 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. (Credential Finance Ltd. 1881.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. Vs Kamakshi Extractions & Anr. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (M. 3657 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0054 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Acquittal Appeal against .Prima facie offence against directors is made out No ground to quash the proceedings on the plea that complaint did not disclose that accused were responsible to the company for conduct of its affairs.P.Cheque dishonoured . (K. 1881.Complaint .Complaint as filed not open to challenge .) 0287 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL. 138-. 138-.Cheque issued by Managing Director of Company .P.) 0287 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.Ramani).. 142(b)-.) 0253 : 1999 (97) COMP.Company .Cheque of full amount presented .. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (A. (Andhra Engineering Corporation Vs M/s T.C.Complaint against Managing Director as also against the Company .Accused is guilty of offence u/s 138 .. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 650 (A.Dishonour of cheque . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (KERALA) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0266 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.Company .Company . High Court is justified in reversing such order of ..Cheque again presented on request of accused .446 of Companies Act.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 22 (P&H) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0255 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.Provisions of S. 1881. 4095 #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.. 2755 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0257 : 1998 CRL.) 0660 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.Contention that payment had been made .) 0725 : 1998 CRL.As per complainant only part payment is received .).P.It would have been another case if at least accused had an amount which was payable after part payment.cheque is presented has also got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. 1881.) 0368 : 1998 (94) COMP. 1881.) 0055 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.P.P.) 0674 .P.Subramanian & Ors.Cheque again dishonoured Drawee competent to prosecute under S. 138.Cheque issued with consent of directors of Company .I. CASES 0606 : 1998 CRL.) 0674 .J.) 0486 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0104 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.). 138.No ground to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.446 of Companies Act are not applicable under S. Not served upon the drawer within fifteen days of the receipt of information from Bank with regard to dishonour of cheque - . 138-.Charge against the two directors quashed. 138-. 1881.) 0251 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.).) 0055 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque issued by Managing Director . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 133 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.Further direction issued that if accused appears and submits bail bond before CJM.. (Yashomala Engineering Pvt.) ISJ (BANKING) 0273 : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0345 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0469 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0822 #12: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (KERALA) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0339 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0896 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 1881.Notice issued .Charge sought to be quashed by the two Directors .Dispensing with personal attendance of accused .No averment in the complaint or preliminary evidence that both the Directors were incharge and responsible to the company for conduct of its business and offence was committed by them . 4383 : (1998)75 DLT 155 #19: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.P.Where sentence of fine of appropriate amount would serve ends of justice.J. L.Ltd. 1881.22(1) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. he shall be granted exemption u/s 317 and his appearance shall not be insisted upon during trial. 138-.Ramani).) (D. Vs M/s Agro Sales India). CASES 0606 : 1998 CRL.) 0449 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .Drawee can make demand of cheque amount only and nothing more .. 1881.Complaint to be returned for presentation to proper Court instead of ordering acquittal..Ramani). (M/s Metalloy-N-Steel Corporation.Company . Vs Tata SSL Ltd. warrant of arrest issued by CJM converted into bailable warrant by High Court . & Anr.22(1) does not take within its sweep the criminal prosecution against the company. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (BOMBAY) : 1999 . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (CALCUTTA) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Does not arise till expiry of 15 days period on service of notice to drawer.. S...J.138 . Bangalore Vs M.). 138.Effect of S.Where warrant of arrest has been issued against accused.Cost of notice also demanded . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 186 (KERALA) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0339 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0896 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. (Mahendra Pratap Singh Ratra Vs M/s N.Intimation of deposit not sufficient Offence is made out and fine of Rs. Vs Tata SSL Ltd. 138-.Notice is not valid .Criminal proceedings against the Company and against the Managing Director and two directors .Notice .J. High Court can dispense with sentence of imprisonment.).K.Complaint not maintainable . (United Credit Ltd. L.S. 2755 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sridhara).) 0142 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0191 : 1998(4) KAR LJ 717 : ILR 1998 KAR 402 #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. & Anr. L.P.2001 (SUPP.Sentencing is a matter of Court's discretion . 1881. (Varghese Vs C. (Raghunath Cotton & Oil Products Ltd..) 0368 : 1998 (94) COMP. 1881.It is debtor's duty to discharge the debt .acquittal .P.K.Notice ..B. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0577 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. Vs Ramarao Cotton Company).205 Cr.A.) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 1881.) ISJ (BANKING) 0273 : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0345 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0469 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0822 #14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. & Ors. 138-. (Ajay Lunia Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.In the instant case.C.`Cause of action' . 1985 on a proceeding initiated under S. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 257 (DELHI) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0287 : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0368 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0181 : 1998 CRL. 141-. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (BOMBAY) : 1999 .imposed.If complaint is filed for any amount other than the cheque amount the case under section 138 of the Act does not lie. CASES 0606 : 1998 CRL.10. 138-.Service of notice and opportunity to meet with liability within 15 days of receipt of intimation is an integral part of commission of offence.) 0522 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.Court having no jurisdiction . (Yashomala Engineering Pvt. 1881. 138-. (Varghese Vs C.. which could be made only default sentence. 000/.K.Ltd. & Ors.Reply to notice sent that there is amount available in the account and appellant can represent the cheque and encash the same Not sufficient .) 0368 : 1998 (94) COMP. does not apply and his personal appearance cannot be exempted . 2755 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Metals).2001 (SUPP. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (A.Company . 1881. 1881.) 0877 : 1999 (2) CCR 0609 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) ISJ (BANKING) 0273 : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0345 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0469 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0822 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.138.Cheque issued at `Pune' where the transaction took place .245 Cr.Notice is not vague.) 0136 : 1998 (3) BLJ 0351 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Harish Chander Vs Kanti Lal Virchand Vora).) 0408 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0161 : 1998 BCR (CRL.Dishonour of cheque .Chaudhary). which accrues for a second or third time. (Suresh Srinivsan Iyengar Vs State of Maharashtra). 138-.Notice issued from Bombay where the company has its registered office . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 444 (PATNA) : 1999 (2) CIVIL LJ 0031 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0181 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. dishonoured and intimation of dishonour received at Bhilai .. Vs Tata SSL Ltd. 138-. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.Place where the cheque was given or handed over is relevant and the Courts within that area will have territorial jurisdiction.138 of the act.P.Complaint filed on the basis of third dishonour Complaint can be filed on the basis of fresh cause of action.It also arises at a place where the bank to which the cheque was issued is located or a place where the cheque was issued or delivered..Complaint is not maintainable being barred by Sub-section (b) of S.Cause of action arises at a place where the cheque was issued and drawer of the cheque fails to make payment of the money .Petitioner can move the trial Court under S. 138-. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 270 (PATNA) : 1999 (2) CIVIL LJ 0327 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. 1881.Petition to quash the proceedings u/s 482 Dismissed by High Court . 138-.Cheque presented thrice and each time notice issued . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 555 (BOMBAY) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0128 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0363 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0137 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. (Suresh Srinivsan Iyengar Vs State of Maharashtra)..Dismissed for default for non appearance .. (Yashomala Engineering Pvt.Dishonour of cheque . & Anr. (Sukhinder Singh Vs S..Notice .P.). 1881.Held.Drawee is guilty of offence under S. 1881.Ltd.Court at Bombay within whose jurisdiction notice u/s 142 making demand for payment was made had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.. 1881. (Sukhinder Singh Vs S. 138-. presented.Territorial jurisdiction . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (P&H) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. 138-. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (DELHI) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0374 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0444 : 1988 CRL. 138-. (M/s Rama Bangia Vs M/s Pushpa Builders Ltd. (Binod Sarawgi Vs State of Bihar).Order recalled on the same day when complainant appeared Order of recall set aside as Magistrate cannot recall his order.) : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0082 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.J.) 0619 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0307 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0391 : 1999 (2) CCR 0605 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0325 #24: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.`Stop payment' .Dishonour of cheque .).Demand of amount of cheque and interest accrued thereon .) 0279 #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Instructions given by the drawer to the Bank to stop payment as accounts had not been reconciled with the drawee Cheque presented and dishonoured . (Mahabir Prasad Bagrodia Vs State of Bihar).Complaint . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 138 (BOMBAY) : 1999 .Magistrate summoning the . complaint filed is within limitation.Cheque issued. 4385 #23: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).) 0877 : 1999 (2) CCR 0609 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. & Ors.Complaint filed at Raipur where the complainant had its principal office .Held. Court at Raipur has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.Offence ripening only on failure to pay the amount Amount payable at the place of complainant . 1881. 138-.and raise all the pleas except the one taken before High Court.2001 (SUPP. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (M. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (P&H) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.Cheque deposited for realisation at Pune where company had its sale office . (Hindustan Mills and Electricals Stores Vs Kedia Castle Delan Industries Ltd. 1881.R.. & Anr.) 0279 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 1881. 138-. L..) 0408 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0161 : 1998 BCR (CRL. 138-.) 0410 : 1999 (5) BCR 0123 : 1998 (3) MAH LJ 0576 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Chaudhary).Cause of action ...Territorial jurisdiction .R. as the case may be . ) 0515 : 1999 CRL. 138-.Complainant examined on 7..Cheque issued by Managing Director Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque due to structural defects i. 138-. 25-. 138-. not justified Magistrate was fully competent to take cognizance after the expiry of 15 days. (Babulal Nainmal Jain Vs Khimji Ratanshi Dedhia).31. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803 #11: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days . figure of the amount has been overwritten or erasures in the drawer's name etc..e. (Secunderabad Health Care Ltd.5. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan).S.5. 138-. 1881. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. it is due compliance of statutory requirement.Accused appeared in pursuance to the summons . 138-. L. 1881.).`Garage of drawer found closed' and postal endorsement dt. (K.Cheque period expiring on a public holiday Cheque shall be deemed to be due on the next preceding business day.J. Vs Secunderabad Hospitals Pvt. 1881.S. Ltd. (Secunderabad Health Care Ltd.6.1995 . any defect in its form. date not properly written.5.Company . .1995 .P) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Complaint against Managing Director without prosecuting Company Complaint is maintainable.138 is not attracted .) 0408 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0161 : 1998 BCR (CRL.9.) 0594 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0589 #8: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Not necessary to mention amount of dishonoured cheque . 1881. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan). 138-.Amount of cheque can safely be presumed to be known to drawer.1995 . (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan). 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803 #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 499 (MADRAS) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0736 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. 138-.There is no need to call upon the accused to furnish security for his enlargement.). (Suresh Srinivsan Iyengar Vs State of Maharashtra). 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (BOMBAY) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0005 : 1998(1) BANKING CASES 0339 : 1998(3) MAH LJ 0762 : 1998(4) ALLMR 0287 : 1998 CRI LJ 4750 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.It is a ground to quash the proceedings. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (A.J. 1881.P) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Prosecution against the five directors quashed.) 0877 : 1999 (2) CCR 0609 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. within time and at the correct address . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 499 (MADRAS) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0736 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.1995 . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803 #10: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.Pre-mature complaint .Company .Cheque dishonoured by bank on 10.) 0515 : 1999 CRL. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.1995 Notice sent to drawer on 23.1995 .Quashing of complaint on ground that it was premature. (K..No averment in the complaint or even in sworn statement of complainant that the said directors were responsible to the company for conduct of business and they were aware of the issue of cheque .) 0594 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0589 #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. 1881. L.Notice received back with postal endorsement `Garage was closed' . it is sufficient compliance of statutory requirement as notice was sent within 15 days of dishonour. 138-.Notice .Raju). L. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 502 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0077 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 5 (KARNATAKA) . want of signature.Pandarinathan Vs V.Complaint filed on 9.Subbaraman Vs Iyyammal).Notice sent on 23.Demand of payment of cheque .Subbaraman Vs Iyyammal). (K.J.Notice ... 1881. 138-.J. 0949 : 1998 (3) RLW 1803 #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0515 : 1999 CRL..accused without applying his mind . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (A. 1881.. L.Prosecution against Managing Director and five other directors .Sent as per registered post..This section is also not attracted if drawer refuses to replace the cheque. Ltd. (Bhanwar Lal Vs State of Rajasthan).) 0515 : 1999 CRL.. Vs Secunderabad Hospitals Pvt. 1881.Held.5.Magistrate can take cognizance after expiry of 15 days of notice.Cheque issued by Managing Director Cheque dishonoured .S. Vs State of U. Vs Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd.P. 138-.) 0211 : 1999 (97) COMP.On a cheque being dishonoured once.P.. & Ors.Giving the date of cause of action in the complaint is not mandatory . or a place where the payee made a demand for payment of the money by giving a notice in writing to the drawer within the stipulated period and at a place where the drawer failed to make the payment.Complaint filed on 8.Dishonour of cheque on account of closure of account before or after issuing a cheque .P. 141-. 138-.) 0525 #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-. L.Notice given on 26. (Vempati Balaji & Ors.P.) 0213 : 1999 (96) COMP.. (Haryana) & Ors. 1881.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.) 0184 #23: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .No averment in complaint that the cheque was issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability .P..Four cheques .Venkataramanaiah Vs Sillakollu Venkateswarlu & Anr. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 561 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) (D.In case of refusal to receive notice date of such refusal shall be treated as the date of receipt of such notice .4. before initiating proceedings under the Act.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. (G. CASES 0013 : 1999 CRI LJ 1219 #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 652 (A.1998 .Vijaya Gopala Reddi & Anr.) 0156 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.If the complaint is filed before expiry of the period of 15 days as provided in Clause (c) to the proviso of S.138 of the Act when parties are same and when cheques are bounced on the same day .Not barred by limitation.) 0028 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. 138-.`Debt or other liability' .B. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0666 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.P. 138-. 138-.No averment attracting provisions of S. & Anr. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 674 (A.P..420 IPC and even if there is any such averment offence thereunder unsustainable .Refusal .).P.P.Notice to company is sufficient compliance . or a place where the cheque was presented..Partnership firm . (M/s Nagdev Sons Vs State of U. 1881. and still the cheque is not cashed then the payee would be entitled to give to the drawer of cheque a notice under Section 138 after the subsequent presentation of cheque and the limitation would start running not from the date when the cheque was dishonoured for the first time but from the date it was dishonoured subsequently.Date of service of notice is a question of fact which can be decided only after recording evidence. 1881.Provisions of S.Complaint not liable to be quashed. 1881. 0518 : 1999 (1) CCR 0064 #16: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Limitation .).) 0392 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0151 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.Notice .No prejudice is caused to accused by issuing such a notice . 138-. & Anr. 1881.Territorial jurisdiction .. 1881.) 0064 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. 138.Cause of action arises at a place where the cheque was drawn. 1881. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 718 (ORISSA) .`Closure of account' .Venkataramanaiah Vs Sillakollu Venkateswarlu & Anr. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0268 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.It means insufficiency of funds Offence u/s 138 is committed. 138-.) 0483 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0201 : 1999 CRL.P. CASES 0622 #19: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (M.Composite notice to complainant for all the four cheques . Vs D.P.1998 . (G. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 674 (A. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (A. (Hindustan Power Controls Vs Swarna Systems).) #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).) 0211 : 1999 (97) COMP.P.5.Limitation .Complaint filed on 13th day from date of refusal to receive notice .Not prohibited under S..) 0156 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.3.138 then cognizance of the offence cannot be taken .) 0528 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0493 : 1999 (2) CCR 0567 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 658 (A.1998 Cause of action arose on 11.).Complaint quashed. 1881.).138 not attracted and complaint is not maintainable . 1881.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.No separate notice need be given to the partner of firm who issued the cheque which is subject matter of complaint.). (Premier Vinyl Flooring Ltd.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. if the payee is asked to present the cheque again..Cause of action . (Niranjan Sahoo Vs M/s Utkal Sanitary). CASES 0013 : 1999 CRI LJ 1219 #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Order of cognizance quashed. 138. (Sanjai Makkar & Ors.#15: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J..Rajender Vs State of A.). No offence.Complaint by Director Held.) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP.J.Held.9.3 & 4 .No allegation that respondents No. 1998(3) . 138-. the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. 138-. L. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0423 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0181 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. 1881.R. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL.) 0605 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0286 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0444 : 1998 CRL. 138-..Partners . 138. CASES 0196 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice served on 1.Devadas Shetty Vs Dr.P. 138-.1992 . 142-. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 190 (GUJARAT) #7: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0112 #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. without authorisation a Director or any similarly situated person cannot maintain a complaint. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL..Pais).Preliminary evidence recorded and case fixed for arguments ..) 0232 : 1999 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. L.A firm having current account with a Bank Bank purchasing cheques from firm and crediting the account of the firm . 141-..Complaint .C.P.Dishonour of cheque ..Action of bank not lawful.Bank not informing the firm and after five years bank appropriating the amount lying to the credit of the firm .#24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Tara Chand & Ors. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL. 1881.Post dated cheque . (K.If the complainant has become wiser during the course of preliminary evidence such statement cannot make a fresh premise in order to summon and prosecute respondents No.Firm lost its remedy to recover the amount from owner .When the allegations made in the complaint make out a prima facie case.Dismissal in the default . (Ajay Khurana Vs M/s Anil Cloth House).Should be filed within one month from the date of accrual of cause of action . Magistrate is not right in summoning them in order to face the criminal liability and as such the charge against them could not sustain in the eyes of law. 0290 : 1998 (2) CCR 0080 : ILR 1997 KANT 2883 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0037 #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 141. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0391 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881. 138-. 92. (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers).) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL.Debt or liability .) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.J. 1881. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A.Magistrate not to dismiss the complaint in default but should consider the evidence and pass an order either to summon the accused or dismiss it on merits. L. 1881.Complaint .) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0509 : 1998 (2) AIJ 0182 : 1998 (2) PLR 0562 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs M/s Dabkauli Trading Company). 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (DELHI) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Cheques subsequently dishonoured/lost .C.).S..Such allegations in the preliminary statement will not help the complainant .J.) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.The question as to whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or legally enforceable liability or only as a collateral security is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate at the stage of evidence .P. 1881.Pendency of dispute before civil Court does not oust the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to take cognizance of offence and issue process pursuant thereto.5 Limitation Act is not applicable. complaint is not premature. 1881.On the date of issuing cheque there was no existing enforceable debt or liability .) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H.1992 . 1881. (Pradip Tibrewal Vs State of Gujarat).) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP. (Pradip Tibrewal Vs State of Gujarat).) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers).Complainant not appearing .9.Complaint filed on 16. 138. (Triton Marinex Vs State of Kerala).Civil and criminal liability It is open to the aggrieved party to resort to either of the two or both .) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Dishonour of cheque .Company .3 & 4 were the incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm . 1881..P. (State Bank of India Vs M/s Jackson Maye & Co.J. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0665 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0161 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0192 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL..Held. 138-. 138-. 2309 : 1999 (1) CCR 0292 : 1998 (2) RLW 1139 #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 1881. 138.Cheque dishonoured .Condonation .Order of Sessions Court quashing complaint set aside.Account closed on 17.J.Complaint to be filed within period of limitation prescribed u/s 142 .Held. 142-.Once notice under Section 138 is issued and drawee fails to initiate prosecution within time the right to initiate proceedings u/s 138 will be forfeited .P. (C. L. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 245 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0723 : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0340 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. 1881..Cheque presented beyond three months and within six months is not valid. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0205 #11: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.Cheque .) : 1998(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 267 (S.1991 .Cheque has to be presented within the validity period . 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 222 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0703 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0577 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. (Krishnan Nair Vs Jaseentha).C.CIVIL COURT CASES 190 (GUJARAT) #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998(2) CTC 462 : 1998 (2) KLT 0765 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1988 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1998(6) SCC 514 : 1998 SCC(CRI. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (A.P.. (Kesavan Thankappan Vs State of Kerala). 142-.. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S. (Satyavan Chaplot Vs Rajendra). (Pallavi Traders Vs Petro Lubes). 3539 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.J.Can be presented any number of times during period of its validity . 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 31 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0103 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0464 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0740 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. (Sadanandan Bhadran Vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar). 138-.`Signatures do not tally' . L..Mentioning of period more or less than 15 days . 1881.138 and 142 are special provisions and exclude the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act.Provisions of Ss.Court cannot condone delay as the very jurisdiction of Court to take cognizance is barred .) 0407 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0375 : 1998 CRL.J.Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed beyond one month from the date of accrual of cause of action.) 0070 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0460 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sadashivappa).J.. L.Proceedings in Criminal complaint cannot be stayed.) 0018 : 1997 APLJ (CRL.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S. L. 1348 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.Notice .) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0486 : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.) .Payment demanded within 7 days Notice not invalid .) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP.) 0574 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0429 : 1998 (93) COMP. 1881. 1881.12. 1881.Kalegouda Vs K.Cheque presented for collection and dishonoured on account of `Account closed' .Delay in filing complaint .Account closed prior to the date written on the cheque .Cause of action for initiation of prosecution arises only once that is on failure to pay money by drawer after demand notice .) 1471 : 1998(2) JCC 91 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. provisions of S. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 504 (P&H) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.P.Again after fresh presentation of cheque and dishonour and notice thereon prosecution is not permissible.Delay .. 0714 : 1998 (2) ALT (CRL.Accused issuing a cheque in pursuance of the agreement . 142-. CASES 0123 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0545 : 1997 CRL. 1881.Treasury Savings Bank cheque having validity of three months .) 0597 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0604 : 1999 (96) COMP.1. 138-. CASES 0423 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0293 : 1998 CRL..9.Offence is committed . 138-.No prejudice is caused to accused. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (M.) 0086 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0049 : 1997 (2) CUR CRI R 0793 : 1997 (2) ANDH LD 0738 : 1996 (2) LS AP 0532 #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.138 are attracted.C.) 0373 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0332 : 1998(2) MPWN 60 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.1990 bearing the date 5.Post dated cheque . CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL.Each presentation and dishonour does not give rise to fresh cause of action but only a fresh right .Cheque dishonored Complaint .) 0066 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0265 : 1998 (93) COMP. (Devendra Singh Vs Varinder Singh).In the instant case cheque drawn on 5.Criminal complaint under Section 138 .Stay of complaint pending civil proceedings Agreement between complainant and accused .. 138-. (Virander Kumar Sachdeva Vs Vijay Kumar).Cannot be condoned u/s 5 Limitation Act .) : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.90 . CASES 0574 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0102 : 1999 CRL.Dispute over the agreement also pending in the civil Court . L. 138.Complaint cannot be lodged thereafter . 138.J. Notice demanding payment issued to the Director who issued the cheque .J. 138-.) 0070 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0460 #25: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.C. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (P&H) : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0648 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0634 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0254 : 1998 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0129 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0652 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. as such it is not open at this stage to give an opportunity to fortify the postal endorsement .Appeal dismissed.1995 . 1881. 138-. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0674 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. (M/s Shivalik Fibres Pvt. 1881.High Court will not interfere u/s 482 Cr. 138. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0181 : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0016 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. 1881.Sent as per registered post at correct residential address . 1881. 1881. (Rajan George Vs State of Kerala).Contention not tenable. hence returned' .Cheque . as it was open to the complainant to examine the postman or the neighbours to belie the postal endorsement. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 504 (P&H) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0674 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Ltd.Notice . 138-.Offer to make payment ..Held.) 0826 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0250 : 1998 CRL. 3671 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138-. Vs State of Punjab). (Balwinder Singh Vs Punjab and Sind Bank).11. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 410 (P&H) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0367 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Cheque issued by a Director of the Company on behalf of the Company .`Month' employed in the Act covers only British Calendar month and not the lunar month.Complaint .Opportunity given to prove by examining official witnesses from the Post Office as to on which date this notice was served on the accused. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (P&H) : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0648 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.Complaint dismissed .Cheque whether genuine or forged . 142-.Trial Court to decide factual controversy .) 0634 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0254 : 1998 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL..Held. Vs State of Punjab).Returned with postal endorsement 'Addressee out of station.. receipt which was not there earlier when she filed this document alongwith her complaint . it can only be attributed to addressee's own conduct . (Muhammed Kunhi Vs Janardhanan). 1881.Not a valid service .Magistrate can accept the complaint. 138-. 1881.Postman had gone to the residence of the respondent on 5 occasions and on all these 5 occasions the respondent was out of station ... 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 455 (KERALA) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0525 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0544 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.Additional evidence ..1995 on the A.Cognizance validly taken by trial Court. (Jaya Chandran Vs Baburaj).) 0444 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0313 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0519 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.Notice .0202 : 1998 (2) KLT 0001 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Appeal against .Notice received back with postal endorsement `Not found' .Contention that date 17.Complainant alleging that after filing of the notice with the complaint the accused has tampered with the judicial record and has written date of receipt of notice as 31. 138-.) 0064 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.When filed on the last day of limitation by a pleader in the absence of the complainant .10.Notice sent on 6.To prove the date on which statutory notice was served .1994 which is written on the cheque should be excluded .It may effect the gravity of the offence.Ltd.Notice . 1881. 1881.Limitation to present cheque starts from the date which is found in the cheque .Notice not required to be issued to other directors of the Company. 138-. (Muhammed Kunhi Vs Janardhanan). (Pawan . (Harmaljit Kaur Vs Swaran Seth).Cheque dishonoured .To be decided by criminal Court..D. 138-. 138-.10. (M/s Shivalik Fibres Pvt.Genuineness of cheque . CASES 0129 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0652 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. (Virander Kumar Sachdeva Vs Vijay Kumar).) 0380 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. once the offence is committed and merely by making the payment will not put an end to the same .Limitation to present . 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0647 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0399 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.P.Company .Notice . 1881.) 0406 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0265 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 441(2) of the Companies Act as they operate in separate fields.Notice .B.Second revision . the partners are also liable to be prosecuted.138.Company .On request of accused all six cheques presented on one date . 1881. 0022 : 1999 (1) CCR 0294 : 1997 (2) CTC 0567 : 1998(1) MWN(CRI. 1881..Company .138 of the Negotiable Instruments and S.).397(3) Cr. (ii) such complaint is made within one month of the date of which the cause of action as contemplated under clause (c) of the proviso to S.) . 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. (K. 1881.) 0533 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0409 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0120 : 1998 (1) CCR 0111 : 1998 (2) RLW 0798 : 1998 (2) WLC (RAJ) 0304 #1: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .P.J.Revision against the charges under S.B.. L. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) (D.Cognizance of offence .P. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak). (Orkay Industries Ltd. .Company .) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors..) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. (K.Sessions Judge dismissed the revision . 1881.).) #8: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act...).There is no conflict between S. 1881. 138-.Prosecution against Company and its Directors .Dishonour of cheque . L. subsequent order appointing a provisional liquidator or order winding up the Company can have no bearing on the proceedings under S.Second revision before High Court in exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr. 1881. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (MADRAS) : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0412 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0378 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1998 (94) COMP. & Ors.P.Govindaraj Vs Ashwin Barai).Accused to be tried at one trial.Can be taken if (i) complaint is made in writing by the payee or the `holder in due course' of the cheque. 138-. & Ors. 138-.) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Partnership firm .When firm has been served with a notice each partner need not be served with a separate notice individually. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) 71 #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.When an offence is committed.Govindaraj Vs Ashwin Barai). after receipt of notice. 0022 : 1999 (1) CCR 0294 : 1997 (2) CTC 0567 : 1998(1) MWN(CRI.Company .).) 71 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. is not maintainable. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (MADRAS) : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0412 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.138 arises and (iii) a metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate first class shall try the offence punishable under S.536(2) read with S. 138-.C. Vs Kanosika Laboratories Ltd.C.) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354 #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.If the partnership firm fails to pay the amount within the stipulated time.) 0378 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1998 (94) COMP. & Ors.J.. (Orkay Industries Ltd. 1881.. 138-. 138-. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak).Service shall be deemed to be effected unless contrary is proved. (Sri Niranjan Sahoo Vs M/s Utkal Sanitary). (Nagarjuna Finance Ltd. 1881.) 0780 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0523 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0188 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Permission of Company Court under Section 441 of Companies Act is not required. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (ORISSA) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. CASES 0236 : 1998 CRL.B.If after notice payment has not been made by a Company merely on the ground that a petition for its winding up has been presented. CASES 0236 : 1998 CRL.Six cheques of different dates . 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 56 6 (A. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.Kumar Vs Shakuntala).Dishonour of cheque . 138-. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) (D. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.138. 138-. 1881.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #9: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Partnership firm . (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak). 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) (D.All the cheques dishonoured . it amounts to `failure to make payment' under S. 1881. 138-.. (Orkay Industries Ltd.) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Sent as per registered post .138.Offence relates to single transaction . 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 218 (RAJASTHAN) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0407 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL..Dishonour of cheque issued by Company . Notice .Notice . 138-.Cannot be prosecuted .Sleeping director . 141-.).Company .) & 1996(2) Apex Court Journal 555 (S.).Prosecution against the Company and its two Directors who signed the cheque .B.Special provisions contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act prevail over the provisions of Companies Act. 138-.0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #11: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Mohan Kumar Mukherjee Vs Ledo Tea Company Limited).99 (SUPP.). 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H) #17: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Mere presentation of petition for winding up doe not render transactions/dispositions undertaken during the period the petition is pending void ab initio ..) 0333 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0181 : 1999 (96) COMP. 1881. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. (M/s Modi Cements Ltd. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak). (Sri Niranjan Sahoo Vs M/s Utkal Sanitary).) 0387 : 1999 (1) CCR 0354 #13: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. CASES 0088 : 1998 AIR SCW 0842 : 1998 (2) ALL CJ 0905 : 1998(1) CRIMES 0268 : 1998 CRL. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (ORISSA) : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL.If the Company or its Directors do not make payment of cheques on the ground that the petition for winding up has been presented.C. (K. 138. 1996(1) Civil CC 309 (SC) : 1996(1) Apex Court Journal 99 (S.Company . 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (BOMBAY) : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) (D. & Ors. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (KARNATAKA) : 1996 ..) 0345 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL..) 0780 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.Mallikarjuna Prasanna Vs M/s Leo Earth Movers).. and if complaint is not lodged before limitation runs out. 141-. 138.J. subsequent notice by drawer to the drawee or the Bank for stoppage of payment does not preclude action under S. 1881.Date of such refusal shall be treated as the date of receipt of such notice .B. 1881.) ISJ (BANKING) 0072 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) (D.After issuance of a cheque. 1881. (Orkay Industries Ltd.Refusal . Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.138 by the drawee or holder in due course. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S. (Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd.C.) 0184 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0506 #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.446 of Companies Act is available to the Company but not to its Directors. 1397 : 1998(2) CLT 0041 : 1998 CCLR 0207 : AIR 1998 SC 1057 : 1998 (36) ALL CRI C 0593 : 1998(2) APLJ 0021 : 1998(2) BLJR 0954 : 1998(1) ALT(CRL. Vs Kuchil Kumar Nandi). it will be deemed that notice was served on them.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0308 : 1998(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR (S.) overruled. 141-. CASES 0205 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0491 : 1998 (2) ALT (CRL. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.`Stop Payment' . 138-. 138-. (Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd.Received back with postal endorsement 'always absent in my duty' .C. 138-.Sent as per registered post .Company .) 0523 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0188 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 1998(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 554 (S. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (CALCUTTA) #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1956.) 0310 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0627 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.Company going into liquidation Company discharged .S. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.Taking of cognizance after examination of complainant is impermissible in law and it would vitiate the entire proceedings. L. (Y. 138.) 0273 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0001 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Proceedings against the petitioner quashed.C.Magistrate has to take cognizance before proceeding to record sworn statements of complainant and his witnesses . 1881..) 0802 : 1998(3) CIVIL LJ 0276 : 1998(2) RCR (CRL.Directors who signed the cheque cannot escape the criminal liability Protection of S.. 1881. 138-.Period of 15 days is to be computed from the date of refusal.Krishnamurthy Vs Sharanappa).) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Once the limitation to file complaint starts to run it cannot stop for any reason.) 0077 : 1998(1) BANKING CASES 0421 : 1998(92) COMP.No such averment in the complaint against the petitioner .If accused were not available at their place of business and their establishment remains closed during working hours.Onus is on the complaint to show that persons sought to be proceeded against were incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business .) 0290 : 1998(1) CAL HN 0133 : 1998(1) JCC 96 : 1998(3) SCC 249 : JT 1998(2) SC 198 . 1881.C. no complaint can be lodged thereafter. it amounts to `failure to make payment' under S.. 1881. 1881. 138.5. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Order set aside .#20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. L.Held. CASES 0088 : 1998 AIR SCW 0842 : 1998 (2) ALL CJ 0905 : 1998(1) CRIMES 0268 : 1998 CRL.No finding given on this aspect so far .) 0802 : 1998(3) CIVIL LJ 0276 : 1998(2) RCR (CRL. notice is not required to be issued to all the partners .138 gets attracted only when cheque is dishonoured. is time barred or not .Refusal to accept on 26.1990 .) 0273 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0001 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J.Until the Magistrate decides the said allegations of forgery on evidence adduced by both parties. 138-. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (A. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran).) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL.Accused on appearance sought dismissal of complaint on ground that cheque had not been issued against existing liability ..Held.1990.Notice to firm only . (Kamboj Gram Udyog Samiti Vs Dhillon Bricks Works).B..Bar against revision under Section 397 cannot be defeated by invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code.Accused on appearance sought dismissal of complaint on ground of non compliance with provision regarding notice . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.There is no presumption of dishonesty . CASES 0571 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0151 : 1997 CRL. contempt proceedings not maintainable. 1397 : 1998(2) CLT 0041 : 1998 CCLR 0207 : AIR 1998 SC 1057 : 1998 (36) ALL CRI C 0593 : 1998(2) APLJ 0021 : 1998(2) BLJR 0954 : 1998(1) ALT(CRL.Trial Court should have afforded an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence. 4275 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL. CASES 0205 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0491 : 1998 (2) ALT (CRL.Funds made available when cheque was presented .Delay . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (S.Krishnamurthy Vs Sharanappa).Cannot be condoned under any provision of law ..C.) 0333 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0181 : 1999 (96) COMP. but is a condition precedent as such and that period cannot be extended by any means. 1881.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0308 : 1998(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR (S. Vs Shanta Devi Dhoot). 1881.) : 1998(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 554 (S. (M/s Modi Cements Ltd. it is a question of fact which has to be decided by trial Magistrate .1990 .Conviction of accused u/s 138 upheld. 138-. it cannot be held that those documents are really forged .) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0172 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0075 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.Period prescribed under the Act is not the period as such. complaint filed before the expiry of 15 days of the receipt of notice is not maintainable.Until then.Held. (Mandhadi Ramachandra Reddy Vs Gopume Reddy Ram Reddy).) 0347 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0018 (SN) #25: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 138-..No sufficient funds in account on the date of issuance of cheque .Accused alleging cheques stolen and signatures forged . L. 1881..Notice issued to the firm is sufficient compliance.) 0398 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0168 : 1998 (93) COMP. 138-.It was incumbent on the Magistrate to afford sufficient opportunity to the complainant. 1881.) : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0049 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0200 : 1998 (1) CRIMES 0393 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. (Girish Chandra Pandey Vs Kanhaiyalal Chandak).Complaint filed u/s 138 .J. 142-. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.Notice to the respondent can be imputed only on 26.C. 138-.6. the date of refusal of the notice Complaint filed on 2. (Y.Notice .Partnership firm .J. (Suraj Theatre Vs Kakaria . (Kamboj Gram Udyog Samiti Vs Dhillon Bricks Works).Notice .. 1881. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (KARNATAKA) : 1996 .This question is a matter of evidence .S.C. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (A.5.) 0290 : 1998(1) CAL HN 0133 : 1998(1) JCC 96 : 1998(3) SCC 249 : JT 1998(2) SC 198 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Plea accepted by trial Court .Limitation .There was in fact no balance when cheque was issued . 1881.) 0123 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0686 : 1998 CCLR 0283 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139-.) 0077 : 1998(1) BANKING CASES 0421 : 1998(92) COMP. (M/s Jaju & Co.99 (SUPP.Complaint filed against partnership firm as well as against partners who are alleged to be incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm .) ISJ (BANKING) 0072 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) (D. Vs Kuchil Kumar Nandi).Question raised is whether notice of demand for payment issued by payee. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. 3553 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Dishonour of cheque . 1881.`Stop payment' .P. L.) 0310 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0627 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.. 1881.. 138. 1881.. 141-. rebuttable.This presumption is.Question of authorisation arises only if the complaint is filed in person name for and on behalf of the company . 1881.Issued in favour of the appellant but the same was sent for collection through his friend .If any extra amount is claimed in the notice that would not vitiate the notice. 138. has also got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint.) 0344 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0496 : 1998 CRL.Directors even if not alleged to be incharge of the business of the company and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company in the complaint then the same can well be supplied at the trial by adducing evidence .) 0257 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL. it is not at all justified in finding the respondent not guilty and acquitting her .. 142-... there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration . complaint is maintainable..Bearer cheque .Demand of amount of cheque and amount of incidental charges .It is also a matter of evidence whether the notice issued to the company alone and no notice was issued to the directors thereof . (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (A.).Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was presented for encashment.Dishonour of cheque . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 219 (CALCUTTA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0507 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0016 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.P.Bearer cheque . 1881. (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani). 1881. notice is valid .Held.) 0239 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0697 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0345 : 1998 (3) CCR 0592 : 1998 CCLR 0287 #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 : 1998 (1) KLT 0384 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.No special authority is required . L.P.Jurisdiction .Held.) 0257 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL. 1881. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL. complaint cannot be quashed. 138-. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.P.Both amounts indicated separately .Notice whether is in conformity to the provisions of the Act is a matter of evidence .118(g) that holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course .. 141-. . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL.).In case Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence complaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court with an endorsement to that effect.Dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds . 0043 #4: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act...Cheque contained no endorsement to this effect .) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263 #10: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Geekay Exim (India) Ltd.. 138. however.Company Complaint filed in the name of Company through Administrative manager who has signed the complaint . 1881. 9-. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.Jurisdiction . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. 118(g).Held.Notice issued to company Company not made an accused .Dishonour of cheque .Company . 1881. & Ors. (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani).J.Complaint filed against directors only . 138-. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 434 (GUJARAT) : 1998 CRI LJ 700 : 1998(2) ALL INDIA CRI LR 399 #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. a bearer cheque can be presented for encashment without any endorsement by the party.Dishonour of cheque .If the Court comes to a finding that it has no jurisdiction to try the case.There is presumption under S. 138.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0370 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.) 0347 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.Notice issued .Intimation by drawer to payee or the holder in due course thereafter that sufficient amount is available in the bank to honour the cheque . (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J. 1881. 138-.Under Section 118(a). 138. (Ajay Kumar Churiwal Vs Suman Sethi).) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Kondody).Held.Bhorathe).) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263 #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Does not absolve him from his liability to pay the amount.Singh Kalra Vs The Star Wire India Ltd.) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 : 1998 (1) KLT 0384 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani). (T. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.Further it is also a matter of evidence whether notice issued to the company could be taken to be a notice to the directors of the company it is the directors composing the company to whom the issuance of notice would matter .Notice .Kondody). . Gadag)..Notice . (Y.Bhoosanrao Vs Purushothamdas Pantani).. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (A. 1881. 138. 138.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J..Held.Registered notice .) 0511 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0531 : 1999 (98) COMP.C.B.by way of cheque and his failure to prove that amount was actually drawn by the accused .. 139-. 25.) 0788 : 1998 (91) COMP.Krishnamurthy Vs Sharanappa).99 (SUPP. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.A bearer cheque can be presented for encashment without any endorsement by the party .Kondody). 1881. (M/s Visva Cement Products.Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is dishonoured has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 of the Act.Complainant is bound to discharge the initial burden cast upon him that the cheque was given by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable liability .P. 1998(2) .) 0273 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0001 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Surya Prabhavathi Vs Nekkanti Subrahmanyeswara Rao)..Cheque issued by H and dishonoured Complaint against H and his wife as the loan was for purchase of car in the name of wife Complaint against wife quashed . 138-.Notice is not invalid as the respondent is entitled to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of this notice. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 617 (A. (Ponnappan Vs Sibi). 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (KARNATAKA) : 1996 .If the letter is sent by post pre-paid and properly addressed and posted by registered post to addressee . CASES 0186 : 1998 (1) CLR 0390 #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J.J. (Ravinder Kumar Vs Sohan Lal).Legally enforceable liability .Cash cheque is a legal and valid negotiable instrument .Cause of action Arises only on failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days is not maintainable. 142-.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. 3553 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (A. 142-. CASES 0223 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0543 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1881. 1881. CASES 0205 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0491 : 1998 (2) ALT (CRL. 1881. 3273 : 1998 (4) CCR 0794 : 1998 (25) CRI LT 0071 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.Non mentioning of payee's name and the striking off the words `or bearer' does not make the cheque invalid.Complainant failing to prove satisfactorily that he has sufficient capacity to lend the amount of Rs. 1881. CASES 0328 : 1998 CRL. 9-. L.) 0310 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0627 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881. 138-. 138.Addressee can be imputed with the knowledge of contents of notice. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.It is of no consequence. accused cannot be punished under S.) 0179 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0487 : 1998 (93) COMP.Provision contemplates punishment only against the drawer of the cheque but not others.`Cause of action' . 000/.J.) 0333 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0181 : 1999 (96) COMP. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. 142-. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran). 118(1)-.. Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation. L.Specifying seven days period to make payment. 3553 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It arises only on failure to make the payment within fifteen days of the receipt of notice.) ISJ (BANKING) 0072 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) (D..Presentation of the cash cheque not by the complainant but by another person . L.1. 138-..P. 138-. 1881.Kondody).P.311 Cr.1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0385 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0629 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. 138. 138. (G. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran). 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.Notice . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA) #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Does not arise merely on the cheque being dishonoured .Witness when not cited in the list of witnesses Court can allow such witness to be examined under S. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 607 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0428 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0753 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0582 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL..) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0438 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. L. 000/. L. there is no irregularity.Magistrate who has received complaint of offence is deemed to have already taken cognizance of offence when he proceeds to record sworn statement of complainant.) 0284 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. 138..Does not constitute taking cognizance of the offence.Complaint filed . 1881.Cognizance of offence .) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0412 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.Complaint is not maintainable as the payee as lost every right over the cheque by endorsing the same in favour of third party. CASES 0531 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.Held.10. Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.made .Company . even after the adjustment of these two amounts. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque amount claimed within less than fifteen days .Complaint filed by original payee . 138-. 138-.) 0814 : 1998 (36) BANK LJ 0077 : 1997 (2) LS AP 0020 #23: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Aggarwal Vs Rakesh Aggarwal).Notice .) 0611 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0296 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL. 138-. 138.Payee need not specifically mention in the notice to pay the amount within fifteen days .. Vs State of Kerala).. or both together .Hence.Amounts to dishonour of cheque.. .List of witnesses when not given to accused .. by itself is not a ground to quash criminal proceedings if complaint is made within one month after expiry of fifteen days from date of receipt of notice by drawer . or person in charge of affairs of company alone.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL.) 0678 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Thereafter cash amount of Rs. 3553 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Order of acquittal passed by Magistrate set aside.Muralidhar Rao Vs State of A.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0079 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0045 : 1997 (89) COMP.) 0077 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0238 : 1998 CRL.P.) 0336 : 1997 (2) KLT 0985 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Murthy). the complainant is entitled to encash the cheque issued by the accused . 000/. 1881. (M/s Visva Cement Products.Complaint filed by Company through authorised representative .Cheque endorsed in favour of a third party Cheque dishonoured . (Padmaja Marketing Enterprises Vs V. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. (Benhur T&I Pvt.. there is nothing wrong in substituting a fresh Power of Attorney or representative of the company in the place of previous Power of Attorney or representative. 1881.) 0521 : 1997 (25) CRI LT 0144 : 1998 (91) COM CAS 0723 : 1998 (1) CUR CRI R 0080 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Gadag).J.CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0010 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. Gadag).44117/. 138-.. (Amar Nath Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwal). L. 1881.P.P.Said authorised representative left the service of the company .P. 1881. 1881.J.S. 138-.The only requirement is that drawer has to wait for fifteen days after receipt of notice by drawer before filing complaint for non-payment of the amount payable under the cheque. (K.5500/.Held. Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation.34. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran).P. 0748 : 1998 (1) CCR 0171 : 1997 (6) ANDH LT 0079 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0399 : 1997 APLJ (CRL. 1881. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 684 (A. as long as there is legally enforceable liability either on the date of issuance of the cheque or on the date of encashment of the cheque. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 487 (A.Company includes firm Prosecution can be launched either against company alone. (H. 1881. (M/s Visva Cement Products.R.) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.200 Cr.) 0245 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT .Ltd. 2402 #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0325 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0034 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0106 : 1998 CRL.Held.paid .Adjournment of complaint to some other date to examine the complainant under S.). L. 142-.`Stop payment' . 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Gadag). 142-.L. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (A.J.C.It is always open to the accused to approach the Trial Court and insist for the list of witnesses Proceedings cannot be quashed on this ground alone.Cheque presented and dishonoured . Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation.) 0151 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0290 : 1998 CRL.. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 341 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0184 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.towards part payment out of a liability of Rs. 141-. 000/. 1881. (M/s Visva Cement Products. still the accused is liable to pay nearly an amount of Rs. 0881 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.Held.Cheque issued for Rs.P. 138.J..5.Firm when prosecuted alongwith partner who had signed the cheque . 138-.Thereafter draft for Rs. 138-.These are questions of fact which trial Court has to decide after recording evidence .Cheque issued by attorney . 138-. Vs Keshvanand). 1881.. 3616 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL. (M/s Visva Cement Products. whose statement was taken on oath at the first instance.C.Soni alias Satish Kumar Soni).Can be presented any number of times within the period of validity of cheque .P.Company .P.J. Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation.) : AIR 1998 SC 0596 : 1998 CRI LJ 0856 :1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0171 : 1998(1) CRIMES 88 : 1998(2) PLR 812 : 1998 CRI LR 856 : JT 1997(10) SC 165 : AIR 1998 SC 596 : 1997 DGLS 1597 : 1998(1) SCC 687 : 1998(1) RCR(CR.Nothing in complaint to show that petitioners were incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company .C. 138-.Enquiry by Court under . 0129 : 1998 (37) BANK LJ 0216 : 1998 AIHC 0918 : 1997 ALL LJ 2108 : 1997 (21) ALL CRI R 0794 : 1997 UP CRI R 0535 : 1998 (25) CRI LT 0147 #11: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.. L.Every person who was in charge and responsible for the affairs and conduct of the business of the company or firm at the time when the alleged offence was committed. (Vandana Jain Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate).No ground to quash the complaint under Section 482 Cr. CASES 0292 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0157 : 1997 CRL. 138-. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint qua petitioners quashed. CASES 0292 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0157 : 1997 CRL.) 309 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.) : 1998 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. L.Part payment made ..P.Though the wording of S.J. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 454 (A. (Associated Cement Co. 1881..J.Lakshmi Vs M/s Trishul Coal Services & Transporters). Vs S.Cause of action for complaint would arise only when pursuant to the dishonour of the cheque notice was issued and the drawer of the cheque failed to make payment. alone can continue to represent the Company till the end of the proceedings.. L.Cheque . 141-.C. 1881. (Kishori Lal Vs Pawan Kumar).) 0607 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL. (M. 1881. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 454 (A.) 0125 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0553 : 1998 CRL.) 0383 : 1998 (2) CCR 0677 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.204(2) Criminal Procedure Code is mandatory.Negotiable Instruments Act.Proceedings cannot be initiated against every partner of the firm . 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 431 (P&H) : 1998 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0257 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) : 1998 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. L. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 482 (S.His prosecution is unwarranted...No Magistrate shall insist that the particular person.Part payment made or that the cheque is for discharge of liability or debt . (Vandana Jain Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate). 3616 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL. 1881.Accused producing receipt showing payment .Dishonour of cheque .Summoning order Magistrate can drop the proceedings if after appearance of accused no evidence is found against the accused.) 0669 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0435 : 1998 (93) COMP. 138-. (Amar Nath Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwal). is also liable for prosecution along with the company..P.Partner . it is only in the nature of directory and nonfurnishing of list of witnesses is only an irregularity which can be cured under Section 465 Criminal Procedure Code.) 0383 : 1998 (2) CCR 0677 #10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.) 0125 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0553 : 1998 CRL.List of witnesses . 138-. 1881.) : 1998(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 238 (S. 1881. 0129 : 1998 (37) BANK LJ 0216 : 1998 AIHC 0918 : 1997 ALL LJ 2108 : 1997 (21) ALL CRI R 0794 : 1997 UP CRI R 0535 : 1998 (25) CRI LT 0147 #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Contention of complainant that receipt is forged . 138-.Is of no avail to the drawer of the cheque for evading prosecution. Gadag).Lakshmi Vs M/s Trishul Coal Services & Transporters)..K. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 476 (ALLAHABAD) : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0453 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL. 138. 1881..) 0669 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0435 : 1998 (93) COMP.) 0607 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 476 (ALLAHABAD) : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0453 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .) 0809 : 1998 (1) CRIMES 0535 : 1998 (2) CCR 0259 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. (B.Ltd.Sharma and Co.J. (B. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 657 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0023 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the company would be deemed to be guilty of the offence .Complaint .P. Accused producing receipt showing payment .. 3751 #19: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..) 0342 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA .During the enquiry under S. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0025 : 1997 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL.15 days period .S. 1881. 1881. L.Even during the enquiry under S. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (GUJARAT) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0085 : 1997 (89) COMP.Prayer to quash complaint declined.C. 4237 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 539 (J&K) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0154 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (J&K) 0456 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.Company .Trial Court has to consider the effect of return of dishonoured cheque to accused . (M/s M. 138-.Averments in complaint that accused are active and responsible Directors of the Company .138 is not maintaianble.Complainant not yet admitted the receipt of this amount against the cheque . 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (GUJARAT) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0085 : 1997 (89) COMP. IPC alleging that cheque by merely signing it was given whereas name and amount was filled by the payee himself . 138.In the instant case complaint quashed. 138.C.. L. 138-.Counter complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law Proceedings of counter complaint quashed.Payment of Rs. 142-. 138.Shoes East Limited Vs M/s Modella Knitwear Limited).Shoes East Limited Vs M/s Modella Knitwear Limited). L. 138-.Dishonoured .) 0036 : 1997 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. the only point for consideration would be whether there is prima facie material to proceed against the person concerned .P. Vs Vinod Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel).Contention of complainant that receipt is forged .Cheque . 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0190 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.Cheque if given by way of gift or present Dishonour of cheque .Cheque and Bank's memo returned to drawer Contention of accused that he paid the amount .. Vs M/s Maruti Udyog Limited). CASES 0376 : 1998 CRL.P. 1881.) 0342 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-.P. (Uplanche Mallikarjun Vs Rat Kanti Vimala).No allegation in the complaint that drawer issued chque in discharge of whole or part of the legally enforceable debt or liability . 4237 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella Knitwear). 420 & 463 etc.Counter complaint by drawer of cheque u/ss 409.Proceedings under Section 138 cannot be stayed pending enquiry Scope of both the proceedings is different.Quashment of counter complaint sought .20 lacs after institution of complaint .) 0671 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0501 : 1997 CRL.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0175 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 611 (A.P.P. (Sardar Singh Vs Karam Singh). CASES 0230 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.First day of receipt of notice has to be excluded.. CASES 0764 #20: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J.Dishonour of cheque . initiated .C. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella Knitwear). .J. (United India Phosphorous Ltd.340 Cr. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0025 : 1997 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL.Does not amount to any criminal offence.) 0482 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0296 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Application for initiating proceedings u/s 340 Cr. 1881. 141-.Section 340 Cr.Complaint is not maintaianble.S. the question of genuineness or otherwise of the document in question would not be finally adjudicated. 1881. 1881.Complaint under S. (Narender Anand & Ors.. (Uplanche Mallikarjun Vs Rat Kanti Vimala).P.) 0482 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0296 #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0175 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.340 Cr..C.J. (M/s M. 138.. Vs Vinod Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel).Prayer of quashment of complaint declined as it is a question of fact. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0190 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.Notice . CASES 0230 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L. 141-.. 138-. CASES 0764 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint . (United India Phosphorous Ltd.Blank cheque given by merely signing it Accused has written name of the payee and the figure . 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 611 (A.Complaint . 138-.) 0087 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0677 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0149 : 1997 CRL. 0759 #18: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Question whether cheque is a forged one cannot be considered in a separate criminal proceeding .Dishonour of cheque .) 0087 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0677 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0149 : 1997 CRL. 1881.J. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (DELHI) : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL. 1881. 1881. 1997 (SUPPL. 138. (Raj Kumar Mangla Vs Indo Lowebrau Breweries). Vs Harish C.Letter demanding payment .Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .Absent . 1881.`Person incharge and responsible' No allegation in the complaint that petitioner was responsible to the company or was incharge of the company . 138.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP.) 0340 : 1997 ILR KARNATKA 3239 : 1998 (1) CCR 0502 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0337 : 1998 VOL.. 138. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0202 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0361 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0411 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.Plea for quashment on the ground that notice was not served .Notice . 1881.Managing partner of the firm and the person who represents the association can be prosecuted along with the firm or association .) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Ltd.) 0638 #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 141.) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (DELHI) #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1997 (SUPPL.Firm not a party . 142-.Presented through bank at Chandigarh .) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (DELHI) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.All the partners and members of the association need not be arraigned as accused persons.. harassment and also causing inconvenience to such persons.Demand of payment within 11 days Drawer had a right to make payment within 15 days .Notice .Duggal Agencies).Complaint at Chandigarh is maintaianble. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 482 (S.C. 142-.No act or negligence attributed to him . 1881.) : AIR 1998 SC 0596 : 1998 CRI LJ 0856 :1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0171 : 1998(1) CRIMES 88 : 1998(2) PLR 812 : 1998 CRI LR 856 : JT 1997(10) SC 165 : AIR 1998 SC 596 : 1997 DGLS 1597 : 1998(1) SCC 687 : 1998(1) RCR(CR. (Saral Enterprises Vs Ashok Thaper).) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (BOMBAY) . 138-. 1881. 1997 (SUPPL...Complaint qua the petitioner quashed..Criminal case is not to be stayed till disposal of suit on the ground that unconditional leave to defend the suit is granted.Service of notice is essential to constitution the offence. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 689 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0202 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0361 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0411 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL. 1997 (SUPPL.Drawer cannot take advantage of the complainant having restricted the period to 11 days.) : 1998(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 238 (S.Complaint and civil suit pending .91 COMPANY CASES 850 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Meltro Enterprises Vs Ramesh Chander). 1881. 141..If the Court finds that some of the accused persons are unnecessarily being arrayed it is always open to the Court to discharge them or direct the complainant to delete their names to avoid unnecessary delay. Vs HMT International). 1881. 1881. (Aruna Khurana & Ors.. 138-.Complaint against partners .Firm . 1997 (SUPPL. 1881. 1997 (SUPPL. 142-. (Nucor Wires Ltd. (Aruna Khurana & Ors. 138-.Jurisdiction . CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers).Duggal Agencies).If the presence of the complainant is not necessary on the day the complaint is fixed then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be a proper exercise of the power envisaged in the section.C.Plea repelled .It is for the complainant to establish during the trial that notice was sent.) 0340 : 1997 ILR KARNATKA 3239 : 1998 (1) CCR 0502 : 1998 (2) KARLJ 0337 : 1998 VOL..) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H) #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Keshvanand). (Nucor Wires Ltd. (German Remedies Ltd. Vs Harish C. 1881. 1997 (SUPPL. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers). (Associated Cement Co. 138-.Letter requiring the accused to make payment is equivalent to legal notice. 138-.) CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..91 COMPANY CASES 850 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales).) 309 #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured ..Complainant . 142-.Large number of accused . 1997 (SUPPL. 142-. 138.Notice .Court to find out as to whether all the accused persons are properly arraigned as accused persons . Vs HMT International).) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0844 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.Complaint cannot be quashed. 1881.Cheque drawn up at Dena Bank. 1881. New Delhi . 138. (German Remedies Ltd. 138-. 138-. 1997 (SUPPL. CASES 0163 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0135 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Cause of action arises only on issuance of notice and non payment within 15 days .Complaint . 1997 (SUPPL.The endorsement 'Refer to drawer' may mean many reasons including the reason of insufficiency of funds . 72-. 141-.) CIVIL COURT CASES 593 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRI.Cheque dishonoured on account of insufficient funds Held. it amounts to dishonour of cheque and it comes within the meaning of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Payment not made within time . 1881. 42-. 1881.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP.) 0152 : 1998 (92) COMP. even after lodging complaint. 138.) CIVIL COURT CASES 715 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL .It does not necessarily mean that cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds . 138-.Cheque .. Jalandhar Vs Darshan Lal). CASES 0398 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0433 #16: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. it is open to drawee to present dishonoured cheque again and again to bank during validity period of cheque. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 264 (KERALA) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Jogy David Vs Babu). 142-.Re-presentation of cheque after lodging complaint .) CIVIL COURT CASES 583 (P&H) : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL. offence u/s 138 is made out.Ravindranath Shetty).Held. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales).). 1881. 1997 (SUPPL..Non-issue of second notice does not vitiate proceedings already initiated. 138-. 138-.Presented for the second time . CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. he is entitled to be believed unless there is some apparent reason for disbelieving him and he is entitled to have the person against whom he filed complaint brought before the Court and tried. L. 1881.) CIVIL COURT CASES 479 (P&H) : 1997 (1) AIJ 0069 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.'Refer to drawer' . 1881. (M/s Shradha Foundation (P) Ltd.Complaint filed within one month of date on which cause of action arose Re-presentation of dishonoured cheque during pendency of complaint ..Once the cheque has been drawn and issued to the payee and the payee has presented the cheque and thereafter.. (M/s Savitha Enterprises Vs K.. Vs M/s Suryo Udyog Limited & Anr. CASES 0637 #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1997 (SUPPL.Cheque .Complaint is not maintainable .Complaint filed .It is for complainant to prove that endorsement 'refer to drawer meant that there were insufficient funds . which ever is earlier . 1997 (SUPPL.#11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Can be presented any number of times within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity.Presumption of truth . 1881. & Anr. 1881.Payment not made within time .C.When a man files a complaint and supports it by oath rendering himself liable to prosecution and imprisonment if it is false. CASES 0797 : 1997 CRL.) 0319 : 1998 (1) KLT 0038 #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque presented within six months but reached Drawee's bank after six months .Complaint and summoning order quashed.Presented after six months from the date on which it was drawn .Ltd. 138. (M/s Savitha Enterprises Vs K..Held. (M/s Lily Hire Purchase Pvt.Cheque dishonoured . 138.Offence not proved in absence of evidence on this point.Rajan). if any instructions are issued to the Bank for non-payment and the cheque is returned to the payee with such an endorsement.Does not necessitate issue of another notice to drawer entitling him to claim further time of 15 days . complaint is maintainable. (Lallu Lal Agrawal Vs Damodar Prasad Gupta).Notice given .) 0753 : 1998 (94) COMP.Notice issued ..When notice is issued and payment is not made offence stands committed once for all and complaint has to be filed within a month from the date on which cause of action accrued.`Stop payment' .Raj Vs M. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 688 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0178 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 623 (ORISSA) : 1998 (94) COMP. 1881. 1545 : 1997(2) CCR 0503 : 1997 CRI LR (RAJ) 0185 : 1997 RAJ CRI 0391 : 1997 (2) RAJ LW 0726 #17: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured . 138... 1997 (SUPPL.) 0216 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 0433 : 1998(94) COMP. 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 715 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0299 : 1998 (94) COMP.Again dishonoured .Ravindranath Shetty). (Om Parkash Vs Gurcharan Singh).Dishonour of cheque again .J. (A. CASES 0711 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0375 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL. 138-. LR (RAJASTHAN) 0847 : 1998(2) CIVIL LJ 0067 : 1997(3) RCR(CRL. Expression 'Refer to drawer' means there were not sufficient funds with the bank in the account of drawer .INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0299 : 1998 (94) COMP.). (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co.Plea that all such questions are to be determined by trial Court.138 is made out . 138-.'Stop payment' . (Ashok Hegde Vs JathinV. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 20 (CALCUTTA) #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Shafique).Cause of action accrues only on failure to make payment within IS days from date of receipt of notice or refusal to accept notice . 138-..It could be so done only on admitted facts . 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0773 : 1998 (1) CIVIL LJ 0433 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL. 141-.Complaint and summoning order quashed. (G.. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 136 (A. 1881.Case under S. 1881. 138-. L. L. 1881.).).) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL. CASES 0830 : 1997 CRL.Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.Cheque dishonoured Prosecution of Chairman alone without impleading the Company .Complaint is maintainable Under S. (Anil Kumar Parolia Vs Mohd.138. complaint is premature as complainant had no cause of action on date of complaint. 1881.J.Attawan).. 1881.) CIVIL COURT CASES 479 (P&H) : 1997 (1) AIJ 0069 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs M/s Bhushan Steel and Strips Ltd.Each of them is independently liable for punishment.141.Civil suit filed for recovering the loss .The question as to whether signatures of the drawer did or did not tally is a question of fact to be decided at trial.Cause of action would arise if no payment is made by the drawer within 15 days of receipt of notice .Summoning order . 3691 : 1997 (3) CCR 0776 #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Dishonour of cheque .) 0470 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0253 : 1999 (96) COMP.Their liability is independent . in that event High Court will not exercise its inherent powers and indulge in the minute scrutiny of facts .Ltd.P.Notice issued but when it was received neither mentioned in complaint nor in statement .. 138-. but there is no requirement that both of them should be prosecuted .Fulfilment of these ingredients under Ss.) 0169 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH . 1997 (SUPPL.Notice . L.Petition u/s 482 Cr.. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL. . CASES 0163 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0135 #20: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . Jalandhar Vs Darshan Lal). 138-.) 0209 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL. 142-. 142 is sine qua non for institution of complaint..Contract for storage of goods and to keep them in safe condition .) 0200 #23: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Repeated representation .Payee has to give notice to drawer within 15 days of receipt of information from Bank demanding payment . 1881.Mere dishonour of cheque does not constitute offence under Section 138 .J.Drawee can issue notice on any of the dishonour and on failure of the drawer to make payment can initiate prosecution.B.Complaint filed within seven days from date of refusal to accept notice .P. negated .. 138-. when facts are in dispute.Dishonour of cheque .Ramachandran Vs Yerram Sesha Reddy). 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case criminal proceedings stayed till disposal of the civil suit. 138.) 0530 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0123 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0445 : 1997 CRL.Damage to goods .Company . 1881.P. the Company and the person who is incharge and responsible to Company for conduct of its business are both liable for punishment. (R.C.Bank endorsement 'Signatures did not tally' and 'Refer to drawer' .Petitioner may approach the Magistrate that process against him ought not to have been issued and Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried.COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 167 (H.J.) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Held.Held.P. 1595 : 1997 (2) CCR 0574 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL. (M/s Atma Tube Products Limited & Ors. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 149 (P&H) : 1997 (2) AIJ 0668 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0776 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL. (M/s Lily Hire Purchase Pvt.Notice . 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278 . 138.It is permitted within six months or within the date of its validity whichever is earlier .) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP.) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.Payment stopped .Complaint is not maintainable as it does not disclose commission of offence u/s 138 of the Act . (Parmod Kumar Vs Subodh Kumar).. 1881.J.) 0816 : 1998 CRL.) 0688 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL. L. 1881..T. 1881. 138-... 1881.Thomas Manjaly & Anr.`T' filed complaint against `Dr.Chinnaswami.J..Complaint filed against Managing director by name who had singed the cheque not tenable in the circumstances.) .) 0615 : 1999 (98) COMP. (Sunil Behal Vs Bliagwat Dayal Gupta & Anr.However the High Court judgment setting aside the order of discharge passed in favour of `T' cannot be sustained as on perusal of record Supreme Court finds that the trial Court was fully justified in concluding that the evidence adduced on behalf of `Dr. 141-.Held.C. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (P&H) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 0661 . 1881.As notice not issued before filing complaint u/s 138 NI Act so `Dr.Complaint is maintainable .) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.) 0826 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0153 : 1998 CRL. 1881.).Revision and appeal disposed by a common order by High Court . CASES 0686 : 1997 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL.) 0584 : 1997 (3) MAH LJ 0335 #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Chinnaswami.C.Restoration Complaint filed in 1994 . (H.T' was insufficient to make out a prima facie against `T' . 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (1) CIVIL LJ 0505 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.482 Cr.).).C.T' .Accused pleaded payment .Order is legal as Magistrate has no power to order the restoration of complaint .`Dr.Complaint ordered to be restored and to proceed from the stage when it was dismissed. Vs Bhagwati Steels).Notice issued after the cheque was dishonoured fourth time . (A.Held.T' and set aside the order of acquittal of `T' . (Tomy Jacob Katikkaran Vs Dr.Notice is not invalid.C.Cheque dishonoured . 138-.C.T' acquitted .Complainant had been appearing regularly and committed no default Accused summoned .Notice . 138-. L. 138.In appeal `Dr.Dismissed in default and accused acquitted .T' acquitted and this is a finding of fact and is based on proper appreciation of evidence and needs no interference .No interference is called for. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 388 (H.. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 496 (P&H) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.T' .Thomas Manjaly & Anr.C. 138-. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 434 (KERALA) : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL. (Kunjan Panicker Vs Christudas).Acquittal on finding that before filing complaint notice was not served within the prescribed period .#3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.serving statements.P.' convicted in complaint filed by `T' while `T' discharged in complaint filed by `Dr.S..Complaint . 1881.Notice to Company is a must .`Dr. in the absence of notice to the Company which had drawn the cheque offence under Section 138 is not made out .Company .P. 1881. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S.Question has to be decided on the basis of averments made in the complaint. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 364 (P&H) #4: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..) 0826 : 1997 (3) CRIMES 0153 : 1998 CRL. 0661 #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Jurisdiction .) : 1998 (92) COMP.Dishonour of cheque . CASES 0235 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0477 : 1997 (2) KLT 0539 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice addressed to the Managing Director of the Company by name making demand for payment on dishonour of cheque .) . 138-.) 0584 : 1997 (3) MAH LJ 0335 #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Agro Industries Vs M. if cheque is presented again and again.Mere entry in the account books cannot be taken as a conclusive proof for the discharge of the onus as the account books are self . 138-.C.) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S. (Steel Strips Ltd. Coimbatore Vs M/s Bilakchand Gyanchand Company).Cheque drawn by Company signed by Managing Director .Complaint .Onus is heavy .J. L. 138-.Order of High Court setting aside discharge of `T' set aside.Restoration application also dismissed . 1881. 138-.) 0215 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0478 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0395 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0409 : 1998 BCR (CRL.) 0215 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0478 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0395 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0409 : 1998 BCR (CRL. Coimbatore Vs M/s Bilakchand Gyanchand Company). 1881.. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (1) CIVIL LJ 0505 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. the cause of prosecute subsists but if notice has been issued thereafter.Finding is one of fact and based on proper appreciation of evidence .Notice .Such order cannot be set aside under S.Chawla).T' alleging theft of cheque and also filing a complaint .P. (A.Dismissed for default .For payment of cheque amount with interest and cost . (Tomy Jacob Katikkaran Vs Dr.. CASES 0346 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.1997(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 581 (S. (Vinay Kumar Jain Vs Narender Prasad).High Court upheld the acquittal of `Dr.Notice . re-presentment of the cheque does not give a fresh cause.P.1997(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 581 (S. 1881.J..All the directors arrayed as accused . (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.) Ltd.If such an application is made.Dishonour of cheque .Cheque presented for collection at place `J' Cheque dishonoured . (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.C.Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr. 1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL. 138-.Summoning of witnesses by defence . 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 81 (P&H) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL. 1881.Company . 138. 138. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #18: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2020 : 1996 (4) CCR 0604 : 1996 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL.) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL. 141. CASES 0172 : 1996 CRI LT 0384 : 1996 (2) CHAND LR (CIV & CRI) 0493 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Right of payee to prosecute the accused under S.Held.Held.. (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co.attomey holder . 138-. L. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.A.254 Cr.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Dishonour of cheque .. if once payee sends notice demanding payment from drawer of cheque then he loses his right to present the cheque again to Bank. 1881. Court may pass necessary orders giving notice to the complainant. 141.Held.Accused making part payment . (P. it is open to the accused to make it clear by filing application fixing responsibility .Complaint filed by Senior Manager of the company who was authorised by General manager . 138-. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #17: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.#12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. is not limited to evidence of prosecution only .It deals equally with the defence evidence if accused intends to produce the same. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 5 (P&H) : 1996 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0569 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881.P. (P.Payee or any person authorised by the payee can make a complaint.Power ...Complaint can be filed by duly authorised agent of payee .Dishonoured . (Surinder Singh Vs John Impex (Pvt. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd. 1881. 142-.Dishonour of cheque .Held. 1881. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates).Cheque can be presented to Bank for collection any number of times during its validity and last dishonour could be treated as cause of action to serve notice on drawer and file complaint under Section 138 However.. S..A. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Order upheld . (Madhu Bansal Vs Dinesh Kumar).Complaint filed by power of .) 0459 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0141 : 1997 CRL.).Cheque . 1881.). (G. 138. complaint is maintainable.company and the accused persons . 138. 1881. 1881.Company . 142-.) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. 142-. 1881.How it matures into offence .). 138-. 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278 #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #16: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.) 0622 : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0247 #15: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.J.Request allowed by Magistrate .Complaint prima facie maintainable. L.) 0816 : 1998 CRL.Summoning of witnesses .J.Issue of cheque.138 is not waived. 138.Limited Company .of .Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates).) 0688 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138-.Jurisdiction Cheque issued drawn on Bank at place `S' . 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL. 142-.Dishonour of cheque . its dishonour and omission to make payment of the amount despite notice matures into an offence on the sixteenth day after the service of notice and the offence would be continuing so long as the amount remains unpaid.).).).Company . courts at place `J' has jurisdiction to try the offence.attorney executed in favour of Accounts Officer of the Company . L. 142-..There is no requirement that complaint should be filed personally by payee or holder in due course.B.He is the person who is having the full knowledge of the transactions of the Company and he is the right person to speak about the transactions that had taken place between the complainant .).. 138-.) 0459 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0141 : 1997 CRL. 1881. multiple or successive complaints in respect of same cheque . 1881.Cheque can be presented at any time of its validity.Mere fact that word `Criminal Court' has not been expressly mentioned would not preclude the Attorney from filing criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act. 1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL. (Sunil Talwar Vs Inderjit Singh). 138-.A person consciously or unconsciously may put different signatures .J. 142-. 3099 : 1997 (1) CCR 0603 .Repeated.Dishonour of cheque -Cheque presented after five months of its issue .Continuing offence from 16th day of receipt of demand by drawer if amount remains unpaid ..Summoning of witnesses is another thing-A witness can be examined even without issuance of summons if a party keeps him present. (Madhu Bansal Vs Dinesh Kumar).Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .) 0359 : 1997 (3) CCR 0643 : 1997 (1) KLT 0302 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. L.Contention that dishonour of cheque is only a civil liability .Vijaya).Leading of evidence includes examination of witnesses .) 0699 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint by power of attorney holder .Reasons not given-Order is irregular but not illegal .Not a ground to quash complaint . 1881. 2020 : 1996 (4) CCR 0604 : 1996 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL... (S.Death of complainant .). 138.Order of dismissal for default set aside.Reddappa Vs M. (Satish Jayantilal Shah Vs Pankaj Mashruwala).J. these are matters of evidence . 138-.J.) 0720 : 1992(2) CRIMES 0203 : 1996 CRL. (Ajit Singh Oberoi Vs Malvinder Singh). 138-..) 0622 : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0247 #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0508 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0027 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0059 : 1997 CRL.`Refer to drawer' . (G. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 81 (P&H) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.Landlord authorised his general Power of Attorney holder to collect rent and file civil & Revenue suits in case of dispute .Dishonour of cheque . L. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 371 (DELHI) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) (D.Dishonour of cheque .. 1939 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.Son allowed to be substituted as complainant.Means many reasons including the reason that there was no sufficient fund for honouring the cheque.B. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL.Signature on AD different from the signature on cheque .) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 28 (P&H) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881.) 0314 : 1997 (1) RCR (CRL. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KERALA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0680 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.Dismissal for default .. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 263 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.Notice . (Shiv Kumar Vs Mohd.Complaint cannot be quashed. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0709 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. CASES 0172 : 1996 CRI LT 0384 : 1996 (2) CHAND LR (CIV & CRI) 0493 #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.In the instant case the accused being conscious about anticipated litigation might have scribed different signature with dishonest and deliberate intention of defeating provisions.by defence . 138-.J. L. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0160 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0609 : 1997 (2) CRIMES 0272 : 1997 (1) CCR 0631 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint fixed for 20th May but counsel misheard it to be 22nd May .Saghir).Magistrate can allow substitution if satisfied from surrounding circumstances and materials on record that such permission should be given . 138-. attorney can file criminal complaint too .Correctness of address and despatch by registered post not disputed Presumption is delivery of notice to the accused .Notice . 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 263 (P&H) #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 5 (P&H) : 1996 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0569 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.Proceedings do not ipso facto terminate or abate . (Ajit Singh Oberoi Vs Malvinder Singh). 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 270 (GUJARAT) : 1998(1) CIVIL LJ 822 : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.).Non appearance of complainant or his counsel on 20th May was neither intentional nor due to negligence ..Complaint .Plea negated. (Raj Vs Rajan).Not served and notice intentionally sent at wrong address .) Ltd. 1881.Not permissible.Magistrate allowed application ..Held.But only one complaint is maintainable . 1881.Held. 1881. (Surinder Singh Vs John Impex (Pvt.) 0688 #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 1881.Dishonour of cheque ..J. Vs Contour Advertising (P) Ltd.. it is not sufficient notice. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 295 (P&H) : 1996 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0789 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0015 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L. 138-... 138-. complaint cannot be quashed. the Magistrate is given a discretionary power depending upon the amount for which the cheque is drawn.. (Swarnalatha Vs Chandramohan). 138-. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 270 (GUJARAT) : 1998(1) CIVIL LJ 822 : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.Payment made .) 0709 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L. merely by making payment will not put an end to the same . 1939 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL. 1881. (Satish Jayantilal Shah Vs Pankaj Mashruwala).. 1881.Summoning order ..Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 371 (DELHI) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) (D.Complaint not to be dismissed for default .Body of cheque not written by the drawer . (M/s Compact Disc India Ltd.Law does not provide that in case of negotiable instruments entire body has to be written by the maker or drawer only .J.) 0720 : 1992(2) CRIMES 0203 : 1996 CRL. L. 3099 : 1997 (1) CCR 0603 #10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 3099 : 1997 (1) CCR 0603 #9: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held. 1881.) 0720 : 1992(2) CRIMES 0203 : 1996 CRL. 138-. present or future .B.B.Every summons or warrant issued under S.Sentence .In the instant case no material is on record to hold that attorney acted beyond his power .Complaint ..Dismissal for default .Notice .Dishonour of cheque .if a bigger amount with interest is claimed in the notice. 1881. (Sova Mukherjee Vs Rajiv Mehra). L. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 17 (KERALA) : 1996(3) CRIMES 283 #15: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 170 (KERALA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0680 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.Cheque given as advance payment Consideration can be past. 138-. 1881. (Satish Jayantilal Shah Vs Pankaj Mashruwala). 138-.J. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 270 (GUJARAT) : 1998(1) CIVIL LJ 822 : 1996(3) RCR (CRL. 138-.In the matter of sentence.) 0508 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0027 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0059 : 1997 CRL. (Satish Jayantilal Shah Vs Pankaj Mashruwala).Saghir).. 3099 : 1997 (1) CCR 0603 #8: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held.It may affect the gravity of the offence . (Shiv Kumar Vs Mohd.) 0359 : 1997 (3) CCR 0643 : 1997 (1) KLT 0302 #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Cheque issued by a Proprietary concern in favour of Proprietary concern .Demand must be of the cheque amount .If a cheque is given for future consideration it would be for valid consideration and in discharge of legal debts and liabilities and the consideration cannot be said as unlawful. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 371 (DELHI) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) (D.J. hence question of body writing has no significance.) 0709 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.204(1) shall be accompanied by a copy of complaint.Not sent within 15 days of receiving information from Bank .). (Raj Vs Rajan).Complaint filed in personal name (of the complainant and accused) without impleading the trading concern .. once an offence has been committed and is a complete offence.Complainant appearing for four years but complainant not appearing on one date .) 0314 : 1997 (1) RCR (CRL. 138.Cheque issued by the attorney .What is material is signature of drawer or maker and not the body writing. (Jatinder Kumar Chopra Vs Harish Kumar).Complaint quashed.) 0720 : 1992(2) CRIMES 0203 : 1996 CRL. & Ors. in case of Proprietary concern the Proprietor is always an affected person who can either indict or be indicted as such the present complaint is rightly initiated by Proprietor against accused Proprietor.Held.It is a not judicious exercise of discretion. 1881. 1881. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (CALCUTTA) : 1996(3) ALL INDIA CRI LR 558 : 1997(2) CCR 313 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 480 : 1998(2) REC CIR R 474 #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Shiv Kumar Vs Mohd.) 0314 : 1997 (1) RCR (CRL. 138-. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 471 (P&H) . 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 270 (GUJARAT) : 1998(1) CIVIL LJ 822 : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.#7: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-.Saghir). 1881.Principal is liable as the principal is always bound by the act of his or her attorney so long the attorney does not exceed his right . N.). 2868 : 1997 (3) CCR 0200 : 1997 (24) CRI LT 0117 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque issued on account of rent .J.J. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (P&H) : 1997 (1) AIJ 0684 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0646 : 1997 (2) RCR (CRL. (M/s Mahaplasto Ltd.Drawee still presenting the cheque .Sharma). complaint does not prima facie disclose the facts so as to constitute the commission of an offence . CASES 0420 : 1997 CRL.Possessor of a self drawn cheque comes within the definition of 'Holder in due course'. (Parmod Kumar Vs Subodh Kumar).Complaint quashed as when the cheques were issued circumstances were different and when the cheques were recalled the circumstances were different.Held.). (Dr.P. 138-.Cheque dishonoured . 138-...If a bigger or smaller amount is claimed in the notice. (M/s Ghawa Ram & Sons & Ors.Notice . & Anr. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 671 (P&H) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0461 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0238 : 1998 (92) COMP.). Vs Bhushan Steels and Strips Ltd.Matter of evidence has to be considered at the time of trial..) : 1997 (2) RCR (CRL.Nothing to show even in the statement recorded . L.Offence under Section 138 is not made out..Dishonour of cheque . Vs M/s Punjab Syndicate Finance (India) Ltd. 1881. 3412 : 1996 (4) CCR 0174 : 1997 (1) CCR 0249 : 1996 (2) KLT 0886 : 1995 (2) CHN 0037 : 1996 CCLR 0040 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Drawer of cheque is guilty of offence under S. 1881. & Anr.Once the cheque is issued.J. (Gopa Devi Ozha Vs Sujit Paul). 138-.He cannot back out from the liability of signing as such and other partners also at this stage cannot be said to be not liable . (Mahesh Goyal Vs S. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 476 (H.Person signing the cheque has made it clear that he has signed it as a partner and for the partnership firm . L.`Account closed' . (Mahesh Goyal Vs S.The expression 'Holder in due course' means a person who is possessor of an instrument even when it is payable to bearer .If the bill is payable to holder then he has to be a payee or endorsee of the same. L.Payment stopped as petitioner had already made payment in cash . it is not sufficient notice. 1881. 1881..Self drawn cheque given to a person in discharge of legal liability . 1881. 1881.P. 138-. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 548 (P&H) : 1997 (1) AIJ 0587 : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0349 : 1997 (2) RCR (CRL. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 661 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.`Stop payment' . Vs M/s Punjab Syndicate Finance (India) Ltd. when the Court will be called upon to decide the truth or otherwise of the alleged evidence.) 0301 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0273 : 1997 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0139 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Sharma).K.) 0301 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0273 : 1997 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL.Pandit Vs Anil Joshi).Request also made by drawer to drawee not to present the cheque ..138 of the Act .. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 671 (P&H) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0461 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0238 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0420 : 1997 CRL. CASES 0438 : 1997 BJ 0709 : 1997 (2) CRIMES 0486 : 1997 (3) CCR 0147 #21: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured by bank as per instructions of drawer and not on account of insufficiency of funds .Cheque .) 0646 : 1996(2) BANKING CASES 0515 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0127 : 1995 CRL.'Holder in due course' . 2868 : 1997 (3) CCR 0200 : 1997 (24) CRI LT 0117 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 348 (BOMBAY) : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.J.For constituting the offence dishonour of cheque is material and it can very well be on closure of account also.Accepting of oral evidence without support of the documentary evidence is a matter of appreciation of evidence in each particular case and it will have to be done at the trial. (Shivendra Sansguiri Vs Adineo). 1881.Complaint is not maintainable.Not specifically pointed out as to when it was received by respondent .) 0764 : 1997(1) SLJ 0336 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. CASES 0139 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.) 0249 : 1998 (92) COMP. 1816 : 1996 (4) CCR .#17: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Must be of the cheque amount . 1881. (M/s Ghawa Ram & Sons & Ors.K. failing which an erring drawer will be penalised .Complaint speaking only of issuance of notice .Dishonour of cheque .. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (P&H) : 1997 (1) AIJ 0684 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0646 : 1997 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0001 : 1996(2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1996 CRL. 138-. 1881. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 603 (CALCUTTA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0664 : 1995(3) CIVIL LJ 0897 : 1995(3) RCR(CRL.Notice . L.Cheque payable to bearer . law takes care to see that it is honoured.Dishonour of cheque . 138-.. 1881.Omission to pass such an order is a mere irregularity.Payment stopped Complaint is maintainable .Notice . Vs Rameshwar Dass). (Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt.Rangappa).Jurisdiction .Complaint quashed. 2264 : 1996 (4) CCR 0623 : ILR 1996 KARNATKA 1219 : 1996 (2) KARLJ 0162 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Steel Authority of India Vs Vishwa Karma Agro). 138-. 138-.). CASES 0433 : 1997 BJ 0032 : 1996 CRL.Non payment of the balance amount in time . 1881.) 0415 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0667 : 1997 (88) COMP.Dismissal for default -Complainant exempted from personal appearance .Failure of counsel to appear on the date fixed . 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 68 (P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (DELHI) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0054 : 1996 (62) DLT 0507 #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2264 : 1996 (4) CCR 0623 : ILR 1996 KARNATKA 1219 : 1996 (2) KARLJ 0162 #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (S. 1881. CASES 0433 : 1997 BJ 0032 : 1996 CRL.K.Cheque dishonoured . 1881..20 cheques .Drawer of cheque informing drawee not to present the cheque as he has not sufficient funds in the bank -Drawee still presenting the cheque .Limitation . 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 87 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0476 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL..Held..Parties agreeing to cancel the agreement and refund the amount received ..Proceedings u/s 138 cannot be initiated.. (Satyanarayana Gowda Vs B.. 138.0429 : 1998 ALLMR 0880 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 102 (P&H) : 1996 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0810 : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.Drawer asked to explain why criminal proceedings be not instituted against him .Agreement to sell .Absence of signature of party or Advocate .Issue of notice with material particulars is substantial compliance with statutory requirement. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (DELHI) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0054 : 1996 (62) DLT 0507 #10: DELHI HIGH COURT . & Ors. & Ors..Order set aside. 1881.Jain Vs Narinder Singh).One notice in respect of 20 cheques . 1881. 138-. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.). 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 87 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0476 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL. (Gopal Krishan and Anr.Quashing of complaint declined as these are disputed facts and the petitioner/accused may approach the Court at Amritsar for dropping proceedings. 138-.Notice .Mere omission of party's or his Advocate's signature in notice would not make notice invalid.) 0415 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0667 : 1997 (88) COMP. 1881.J. (Satyanarayana Gowda Vs B. (Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt.J. where common evidence has to be recorded Court in order to save time can record evidence in one case and such evidence can be placed on record in other cases . (Harvinder Singh Vs Smt..Dismissal of the complaint in default .Rangappa).20 complaints in respect of dishonour of 20 cheques .Held. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 108 (P&H) : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL. it is not a valid notice of demand . 138-.Dishonour of cheque .) 0691 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0205 : 1996 (4) CRIMES 0377 #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 is not attracted in such a case . 142-. 138-.) 0798 : 1997 (88) COMP.) 0550 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0544 : 1996 BJ 0672 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ishwari Devi Vs State of Punjab).Three cheques issued .Notice .Suman Rani & Ors.Evidence recorded in one case and carbon copies placed in 19 other cases . L.Notice should be given within 15 days of the receipt of information from the bank -Notice when received by the addressee is immaterial. CASES 0544 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0557 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Presented at Amritsar and dishonoured Jurisdiction of Court at Amritsar challenged an the plea that property is situated at Delhi. S.Ltd.Court has to examine Whether the return of the cheque was on account of insufficiecy of funds. 1881.).) 0749 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0492 #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held. L.. & Ors. 1881. & Ors.Specific demand not made .Object of notice is to inform drawer of the fact of dishonour of cheque and to ask him to make good the amount . 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 105 (P&H) : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL. 138-. Vs Linkers Associates Ltd. cheques were issued at Delhi and parties had agreed that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction Agreement denied by the complainant . Vs Linkers Associates Ltd.Notice .Valid.Ltd. Notice .Notice ..toned after 15 days of the receipt of intimation from bank regarding bouncing of cheque . 1881..Dishonour of cheque -Genuineness disputed Accused at the stage of defence evidence seeking to send the same to handwriting expert for his opinion .J. 1881. (Swarnalatha Vs Chandramohan). 138-.Facts of the case disclosing triable issues .Held. (Syed Hamid Bafaky Vs Moideen).) 0298 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.Mistake in number cannot mislead drawer of cheque and there is sufficient compliance.Bharti).Notice . (Shree Lalit Fabrics Pvt..) 0182 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0615 : 1996 (85) COMP.Complaint dismissed on the ground that notice has not been served . 1881.Negotiable Instruments Act.A.Order of dismissal set aside..Wrong cheque number . 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572 (ORISSA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ORISSA) 0570 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0080 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0110 : 1997 (1) CCR 0475 : 1996 (2) OCR 0360 : 1996 CULT 0528 : 1996 (2) OLR 0412 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Jatinder Kumar Chopra Vs Harish Kumar). 1881.Recording satisfaction of a prima facie case .Complaint filed by one of the partners . 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 17 (KERALA) : 1996(3) CRIMES 283 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Viswanathan Vs Ramachandran Nair). (Nazim Vs State). & Ors.) 0182 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0615 : 1996 (85) COMP. Vs Linkers Associates Ltd.. 138-.Petition for quashing order of summoning .. L.D.Not received back . 138-. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Held. (Ganesh Sukhlal Joshi Vs M.Offence u/s 138 does not involve moral turpitude . 138-. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (BOMBAY) #14: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).. 1881. (Saseendran Nair Vs General Manager). 1881.Complainant . CASES 0267 : 1996 CRL. 1013 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Kuruvilla Vs Sivarama Pillai)..Joint notice in respect of all the cheques .Notice illegal . 138-.Taking cognizance of offence . 1881. then the same would constitute `receipt' of notice.Only single transaction between parties .It suffers from no infirmity .If could not be actually served due to the culpable default or deliberate evasion of the accused.Complaint quashed. L.`Giving notice' -Meaning . & Ors.Notice .Allegations in the complaint clearly constituting cognizable offence .) 0245 : : 1997 (1) RCR (CRL. 1881.Ltd.If the payee has dispatched notice on the correct address of the drawer reasonably ahead of the expiry of fifteen days... Vs Pukharaj Jain). 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 122 (DELHI) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0054 : 1996 (62) DLT 0507 #11: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.Does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner who has ample opportunity to test the veracity of those witnesses by cross-examining them at the appropriate stage and if necessary.Complaint .Notice .) 0575 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0177 : 1996 CRL.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 1881. CASES 0267 : 1996 CRL.Evidence not discussed . 138-.J.Single complaint can be filed in respect of the three cheques.Three cheques issued by the same accused .. 138-. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 479 (P&H) #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Syed Hamid Bafaky Vs Moideen).Power of attorney holder Can file a complaint. 138-. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 269 (KERALA) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Order to discharge from service set aside. 1881. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (KERALA) : 1996 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0765 : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL. the document can be sent to the handwriting expert for his opinion.J. clause 27 of General Clauses Act clearly envisages that when Registered notice is posted it is presumed to have been served unless rebuttal is given. 4289 : 1997 (2) CCR 0225 : 1996(2) KLT 482 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (KERALA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) (D. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (KERALA) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (DELHI) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.All the three cheques dishonoured . (Ranjit Ray & Anr.. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (KERALA) : 1996 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0765 : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.A. 138-. 138-. it can be regarded that he made the demand by giving notice within the statutory period.B. 1013 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. by leading defence.Filing of complaint justified . 138-. 138-. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint .There is no provision in the Code for revival of the complaint.138 .. conduct of complainant not bona fide and in good faith in prosecuting the matter and having taken chance by contesting application filed by accused Delay in filing appeal not condoned.Trial Court to decide real cause for non. 1881.1991 .9.Failure to prove the case to attract the provisions of S. CASES 0771 : 1995 (3) CRIMES 0683 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0596 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.).Cheque in favour of partnership firm . Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza).) 0633 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0118 #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . Vs Pukharaj Jain).9.Dishonour of cheque . (Ranjit Ray & Anr. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 514 (P&H) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0300 : 1997 (1) RCR (CRL.There is no question to rebut the presumption under S. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL. it necessarily means that he has taken cognizance of the offence.Manager or agent of proprietorship concern -Can file a complaint.Dishonour of cheque .P.Complaint to be vigilantly checked by the Criminal Courts and they should not allow short circuits .) 0491 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0692 : 1995 CRL. 1427 #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT . (Navrattan Jain Vs M/s Capital Leasing & Finance Co.No liability to pay Complainant failed to prove the case to attract the provisions of S..) 0564 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0176 : 1996 (1) CCR 0047 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Taking cognizance of offence . (Brijlal Vs Jugal Kishore & Ors. 138-. 139-.Held.C.21.139 of the Act.).138.. (Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar Porwal & Anr. 139. (R.Dismissed for non prosecution on 21. (Goa Plast Pvt.cannot be thrown at the threshold.) 0493 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0403 : 1996 (85) COMP. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (BOMBAY) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.A..Dismissal for non appearance of complainant . 1881.If the Magistrate takes some steps as provided under S. 1881.`Stop payment' but sufficient funds in account . 138-.J. 138-. 138.No case made out for quashing complaint . 138-.. 1881.Bharti).Cheque issued by employee in favour of employer .Complaint . (Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal Vs Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar Porwal & Anr.Revision allowed by Sessions Judge -Thereafter complainant filing appeal against order dt. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.Parties should not be allowed to appease their anger or return their vengeance by starting proceedings in criminal Courts where proper remedy is to resort of Civil Court.Cheque returned by bank on ground of `Refer to drawer' ..Ltd. 1881.. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza). 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 58 (ALLAHABAD) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0037 : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL.200 Cr. complaint is filed by a proper person..Complaint filed by a partner . 1881. 1881.payment of cheque. (Goa Plast Pvt. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0155 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0636 #2: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Ganesh Sukhlal Joshi Vs M.Relations were of master and servant or employee and employer .Ltd.Held.On same day restoration application filed -Complaint restored Revision against .). 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572 (ORISSA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ORISSA) 0570 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0080 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0110 : 1997 (1) CCR 0475 : 1996 (2) OCR 0360 : 1996 CULT 0528 : 1996 (2) OLR 0412 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Liability to pay .) 0564 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0176 : 1996 (1) CCR 0047 #5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). (Deepak Agarwal Vs Shanti Swarup Jain).Holder of cheque-There is a presumption that the cheque received is for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability and the accused is required to dislodge this presumption. L. 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..1991 . (Goa Plast Pvt.No business or commercial or mercantile relations between the parties . 138-. 1881.Rajendra Reddy Vs M/s Sujaya Feeds)..Ltd. 138-. 1881. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza). 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1882 : 1994 (2) LW (CRL. (N.360) (Gian Chand Vs M/s Malwa Traders). L. 2306 : 1995 MLJ (CRL.) 0513 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0582 : 1996 BJ 0234 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0538 : 1995 CRL.Magistrate recording statement of complainant and marking some documents .Veeraraghavan Vs Lalith Kumar).360 Cr.`Stop payment' .J. and released on probation.Dishonour of cheque . (Criminal Procedure Code.C. 1881. 1882 : 1994 (2) LW (CRL. 1904 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL. (Ranjit Ray & Anr. L.J.Complaint tiled on 3.Negotiable Instruments Act. S..1992 .Accused convicted Accused subsequently paying entire amount to complainant . (Brijlal Vs Jugal Kishore & Ors.Doraisamy Vs M/s Archana Enterprises). 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 572 (ORISSA) : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ORISSA) 0570 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0080 : 1997 (1) CRIMES 0110 : 1997 (1) CCR 0475 : 1996 (2) OCR 0360 : 1996 CULT 0528 : 1996 (2) OLR 0412 #13: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.. 1881.) 0669 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0318 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0428 : 1996 BJ 0191 : 1995 (3) CRIMES 0205 : 1995 CRL.J.Veeraraghavan Vs Lalith Kumar).4.J. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 299 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0155 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0636 #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. certain officials of the company arrayed as accused .) 0183 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0600 : 1995 CRL. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL. 141-.) 0482 .) 0669 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0318 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0428 : 1996 BJ 0191 : 1995 (3) CRIMES 0205 : 1995 CRL. 1881. (Mahabir Singh Vs Chandan Manerjee). Vs Pukharaj Jain).Partnership firm Complaint filed against partners of firm and firm not made a party .Dishonour of cheque . 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL.Held. L.Held. (Manimekalai Vs Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi).Complaint is maintainable.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.5. (J.) 0383 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0167 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0300 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1102 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .Dishonour of cheque on any of the contingencies or eventualities other than the ones mentioned in S.Dishonour of cheque . 1427 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.`Account closed' .) 0510 #12: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.1992 and the complaint has to be tiled within one month from 10.. 1881.These are questions of fact.. (J. L.Magistrate is competent to take cognizance.. L. complaint is tiled within time as cause of action to tile the complaint arose on 9. 1881. at this stage it cannot be said that the complaint is either not maintainable or time barred . 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 378 (MADRAS) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0491 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0692 : 1995 CRL. 1881.J.Accused given benefit of S.6.Held.It is not always for the Magistrate to specifically state that he has considered the material and formed an opinion that there are grounds for further proceedings in the case.Criminal liability is not constituted.Notice sent on 23.Can be inferred that Magistrate applied his mind and only then passed the summoning order . 1973. (Aruna Bai Vs Surendra Babu).Rajendra Reddy Vs M/s Sujaya Feeds).However.Dishonour of cheque . complaint is filed against proper persons. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 126 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL. L.) 0186 #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Liability to pay of firm `A' Partner of firm `A' issued cheque from account of another sister concern `B' of that firm Complaint filed against partners of firm `A' .Quashing of complaint Contention that neither notice nor complaint within time .. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 593 (P&H) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0405 : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.5. (R. 138. 1881.1992 received on 25.1992 .4.Dishonour of cheque .). 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 257 (P&H) : 1995 (2) AIJ 0764 : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL. summoning order is not invalid .Specific averment as to persons responsible for conduct of its business not made . 1881.) 0663 #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.1992. 138-.J.. 138.. 138-.Magistrate issued summoning order without recording his opinion . 138.P. 1881. 138-. 138-. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL.Held.Prosecution can be launched. 141-.138 of the Act ..Dishonour of cheque .) 0090 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0405 : 1999 (97) COMP. CASES 0129 : 1995 CRL.Prosecution against Company and/or other individual officials named therein cannot be quashed.. 138-. 142-. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 291 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0528 : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0663 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Absence of such averments in the complaint not material . 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 486 (MADRAS) : 1995(2) BANKING CASES 0304 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0165 : 1994 (80) COMP. 1881. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL.In response to the notice the drawee sent the payment as per draft and the payee refused to accept the same . 141-. 1881.K. (S. 1881. (Bal Chand Vs State of Haryana)... 138-. 138. (Kamal Vs State).) 0148 #19: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complainant alleging that on demand accused threatened the complainant with dire consequences .#17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Muthuraman Vs Shree Padmavathi Finance). (Manimekalai Vs Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi).Offence cannot be compounded.Sent by UPC .. 1102 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Petition for quashing proceedings on the ground that allegations were vague At this stage there is no ground to exercise inherent powers u/s 482 Cr.No provision that list of witnesses shall be mentioned in the complaint .The period of 15 days is just to give one more opportunity to the drawer of the cheque to escape punishment provided by S.320) (Antony Vs Sherafudin).Notice issued is valid. CASES 0656 : 1995 BJ 0343 #20: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.List of witnesses .J. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 520 (ALLAHABAD) : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 052 #21: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (P&H) #25: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881. 138-. Vs Beerbal Dass Jindal).. CASES 0587 : 1996 (3) CRIMES 0008 #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Kamal Vs State).K. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 520 (ALLAHABAD) : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 052 #22: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Beerbal Dass Jindal).Offence is complete as soon as the cheque is dishonoured . 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 394 (P&H) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL..P.Witnesses .Dishonour of cheque .Notice .138. 138-.C. (Cr. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .4.It can be supplied at any time .There is a presumption that unless it is returned to the sender it has reached the addressee within a reasonable time Principles of constructive service of notice can be applied to such cases. to quash the complaint. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (P&H) : 1995 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0112 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.K.Sole proprietorship firm Not made party .Until and unless it is supplied summons or warrant shall not be issued.) 0355 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0032 : 1995(1) BCLR 0252 : 1994(3) CHANDIGARH CRL.Dishonour of cheque .C. 1881..Trading & Co.Cheque presented three times .Notice issued within 15 days of the last dishonour .Returned undelivered . 1881. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (KERALA) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Trading & Co. S.) 0148 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.1989 -Cheque issued and dishonoured before this date .. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 394 (P&H) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.Complaint by power of attorney holder . 138-. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (ALLAHABAD) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL. L.Provision is not applicable.Notice . 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (ALLAHABAD) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.. 1881. 138-.Dishonour of cheque . (P. (Kharar Rice & General Mills Vs Jiwa Ram Parkash).) . 1881. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 520 (ALLAHABAD) : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 052 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. (S.) 0183 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0600 : 1995 CRL.) 0161 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0483 : 1995 (84) COMP.Provision enforced on 1.Works)..Complaint and summoning order quashed as complaint is filed to harass the accused.It is permissible. 138-.Provision is not applicable. (Jai Gopal Khanna Vs J.P.It is the discretion of the learned Magistrate to examine any number of witnesses or the sole complainant for his satisfaction to show whether any prima facie case is established.Held.1973.Charge framed against accused .Dishonour of cheque .Engg. 1881. CASES 0565 #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. sole proprietary concern need not be made as party in the complaint apart from the sole proprietor. 1881. 138-. (Kamal Vs State).Dishonour of cheque .. (Bal Chand Vs State of Haryana).. (Hardip Singh Vs Gurnam Singh Randhawa). 1881.Date given in notice which has been exhibited .High Court quashed summoning order against son . 138-. there is no deficiency in complaint.Date of issuance of notice mentioned in complaint and not date of receipt of notice .0161 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0483 : 1995 (84) COMP. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.Mere fact that the date of delivery of notice is not mentioned in the complaint. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL..10. 1881.6 . 138-. L.`Refer to drawer' .Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds . 142-. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. at the stage of deciding whether process is to be issued or not Magistrate is not required to assess the material on record minutely .Complainant not examined on oath by Magistrate but allowed the Advocate to examine him . however curable. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti). 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 8 (P&H) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0520 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL. it is abuse of process of Court. 1881. 138-. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (M.J. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti).The mere fact that the company had been declared a sick industrial unit is not a ground to quash the complaint.However.. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (ALLAHABAD) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 8 (P&H) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0520 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL. 138.200 . 138-.Complaint against father & son . L.Application of son to discharge him from the case dismissed on the ground that there is no provision in the Cr.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP.. 138. 1881. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL.Complaint .Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (P&H) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.Held.J. 142-. 1881.M.Notice Dt. 1881. does not affect the maintainability of the complaint.It is violative of S. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Date of return of cheque by Bank not mentioned in complaint .) 0637 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0392 #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .. (M. (Atul Jain Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate. L. 142-.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP.Cheque presented again . Vs Beerbal Dass Jindal). 142-. summons issued both against father & son .J. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #10: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Defect is. 142-. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti).C.Complaint is maintainable.) 0464 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Claim satisfied as the amount stood paid Complaint u/s 138 quashed. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL.If the notice is dispatched on 13.No illegality ..) 0161 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0483 : 1995 (84) COMP.Father ordered to be summoned . 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.K.M. 138.Trading & Co. L. CASES 0587 : 1996 (3) CRIMES .) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. (S.High Court cannot quash the proceedings on this ground. CASES 0587 : 1996 (3) CRIMES 0008 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0464 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL.Means there are not sufficient funds in the account to meet the claim.J. Jalandhar). 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.Rajagaria Vs State of Punjab). 1881..1992 . 138.6.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP.On the acknowledgement date mentioned as 13.6.Held.1992 then it is beyond 15 days of intimation of dishonour . for the discharge of the accused in summon case .. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti).Notice not issued . 1881.Rajagaria Vs State of Punjab). 138.P.Held. ) 0277 #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Vikram Bhargav Vs Ashish Pal Khatri). 138.P. 138.N.Court at Panipat has jurisdiction to try the complaint. 1881.Traders).Veerabhadra Rao Vs Govt. 138. (A. CASES 0806 : 1994 (4) CCR 2374 : 1994 (1) LW (CRL.Cheque issue by servant .).Dishonour of cheque .7 days time given for payment Held. 142-. 1881. 138-.. Telephones Revenue).Quashing of complaint sought that full details as to dishonour of cheque not given in notice . 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (KARNATAKA) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (KARNATAKA) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 118 (MADRAS) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0291 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0334 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0347 : 1995 (86) COMP. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (KARNATAKA) #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque can be presented any number of times within its period of validity or within a period of six months from the date of issuance and on each occasion when the cheque is dishonoured the petitioner gets a fresh cause of action to file complaint and the limitation would be computed from that point of time.Amount due on cheque whether a liability or in the nature of a loan . (Samant Vs K.Validity .Amounts to issuing of cheque by the principal.420 IPC nothing prevents the complainant from filing the complaint u/s. (Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs K. when allegations are for an offence u/s. 138-. 138-.) 0277 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.. of A.Limitation .S. of A.A complaint filed beyond one month of the date on which the cause of action has arisen is barred .G..P.) 0412 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0092 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0409 : 1995 (82) COMP.Question is to be gone into after recording of evidence .420 IPC.Jurisdiction . 1881.Cheque dishonoured at Panipat . it contravenes S. notice is not bad as it is not necessary for the payee to specify any time in the notice for making payment.P.C. (A..Cheques issued from Delhi . (Samant Vs K.) 0337 : 1997(1) MAD LW (CRI) 337 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138-. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 284 (A.) 0596 : 1995 (1) LJR 0552 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Can neither be extended u/s 473 Cr.Traders). 141-.N. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 361 (P&H) : 1995 (1) BCLR 0342 #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.G. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (DELHI) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0435 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 284 (A. 138-.J.Traders). L.Payee or holder in due course can only file a complaint. 1881.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. NOC 0158 : 1993 (3) ANDH LT 0705 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0071 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL..200 Cr.Notice .) 0530 : 1994 BJ 0652 : 1994 CRL.) 0596 : 1995 (1) LJR 0552 #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 1881. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (P&H) : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL. L. CASES 0147 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1086 : 1994 (56) DLT 0066 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 Negotiable Instruments Act ..Persons who are incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of business can be prosecuted without the firm itself being prosecuted.0008 #13: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138-. (Avtar Singh Vs Accounts Officer. technicalities should not come in the way of justice.N.C.Veerabhadra Rao Vs Govt.Summoning order cannot be quashed. 138-.Held..) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. (Vikram Bhargav Vs Ashish Pal Khatri). 142-.. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (P&H) : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL. nor the delay condoned u/s 5 of the Limitation Act . 138. (Samant Vs K.Cognizance should precede the recording of the sworn statement and if the Magistrate straight away on receipt of the complaint records the sworn statement and thereafter takes cognizance..).Dishonour of cheque . 1881.P..P. (Konark Cables Vs Premier Engineering & Electricals).Cheque issued by firm . CASES 0452 : 1996 BJ 0045 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL.Complaint .Selvamani).Held. 1881. NOC 0158 : 1993 (3) ANDH LT 0705 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0071 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL. 1881.P.) 0530 : 1994 BJ 0652 : 1994 CRL. 142-.Dishonour of cheque .P.Complaint filed u/s 420 IPC instead of S.G.J. ) (D. (B.B.138. 1963. LJ 1858 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) (D. 138-... (Poornasree Agencies Vs Universal Enterprises).) (D. (B.P.Mere issue of cheque for any other purpose like gift or present without sufficient funds in Bank does not constitute offence. 1881. complaint filed is beyond time and therefore cognizance is barred.J. Limitation Act.and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint.P. 138-.) 0420 : 1995 AIHC 2962 : 1995(1) KLT 350 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).6.5). 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.6.P.).Mohan Krishna & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. (V. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670 (KERALA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.. CASES 0445 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0644 : 1994 (2) KLT 0997 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Stop payment .) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 55 (P&H) : 1995 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0186 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.Mohan Krishna & Ors.1993 . 138-. CASES 0610 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0019 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.P. L.B.Nowhere complainant says that the cheque was dishonoured due to want of sufficient amount in the account .).5.Liability arises only when cheque is issued to discharge any debt or other liability . 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL. 138-.P.J.Limitation ..437.C.Mohan Krishna & Ors. 1881. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL. Vs Union of India & Ors. 142-.) 0716 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0019 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0145 : 1998 (92) COMP.15 days time to be counted from 10. Vs Union of India & Ors. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.). 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL.P. 000/.7. (Cr.J.P. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL. 138-.C. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A. 000/.) 0500 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0194 : 1995 (84) COMP.1993 and therefore the complaint ought to have been filed before 24. Vs Union of India & Ors.by S. 138-. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.7. 1881. which was a holiday. (Gulshan Rai Vs Darshan Lal). S. 1881..1993.Complaint quashed.Fails to make the payment' do not mean `Failure without reasonable cause' .) (D.In the instant case it starts from 25.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT .17 of Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.It cannot be said that complaint can be filed upto 25. complaint rightly dismissed.) 0231 : 1995 (1) KLT 0370 #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint to be filed within one month ..Mohan Krishna & Ors.Notice not issued .) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL.1993 . 1881.Complaint filed on basis of second dishonour .6.).Drawer of the cheque is not entitled to lead evidence that he had no reason to believe when he issued the cheque that it may be dishonoured on presentment for the reasons mentioned in S.P.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL.Notice received on 9.P.P. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (KERALA) : 1995(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0125 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.7..1993 is within time . 1881. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL. (B.K.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Exclusion of mens rea in S.5.Notice issued . 1881.Held. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 342 (KERALA) : 1995(2) CIVIL LJ 0660 : 1995(1) REC CRI R 0010 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0423 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0142 : 1995 (3) CRIMES 0798 : 1995 CRL. S.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. and it having been filed on 26.J. (Kunhimuhammed Vs Khadeeja).B. L.B.138 for fastening criminal liability strictly not arbitrary and hence not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.Cheque again presented and again dishonoured .. (B.6. L. 1973.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. 138.can be imposed by Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate if situation so warrants even if the power of court to impose fine is limited only upto Rs. (B.B.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Cheque dishonoured ..Balakrishnan Pillai Vs Abdullakutty).Fine in excess of Rs. L.1993 and would expire on 24. 138-.29 Cr.P.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.1993 .) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) (D.Proviso .Prosecution of a Company for an offence u/s 138 is not prohibited by S.Held.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL.Mohan Krishna & Ors.J.P. 138. Vs Union of India & Ors.Second presentation of cheque . 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A. 142-.Cause of action to file complaint arises only after expiry of 15 days from service of statutory notice period . 142-.).Accused to raise this plea before trial Magistrate by filing a separate application and the matter to be decided by a separate order. L. CASES 0487 : 1994 BJ 0536 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0259 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.B.It is open to the payee or holder in due course to present the cheque for payment even after his failure to file a complaint on the basis of the first cause of action accrued to him.).) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (BOMBAY) : 1995 ISJ (BANKING) 0064 : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0408 : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0800 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0462 : 1994 (80) COMP.).Jurisdiction .Mohan Krishna & Ors.).Dishonour of cheque ... 1881. (Rajan Kinnerkar Vs Eric Cordeiro). 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 550 (DELHI) #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. CASES 0959 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0366 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (S.B.) (D. (Dr. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0441 : 1996 BJ 0496 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0195 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (S.Ravi Kumar Vs Rajesh Kumar R. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 610 (P&H) : 1995 (1) AIJ 0180 #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J. 1881.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions .Not brought on record so far . 138-. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H) #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P...) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Petitioner to bring this fact on record when the trial starts and only then he can apply for quashing complaint against him. Vs Gitanjli Motors Ltd.Provision is not applicable as cheque is not returned on account of insufficient funds.Deliberate evasion to receive notice Amounts to constructive service of notice..B.P.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. 1881. then payee can represent the cheque and after complying with the requirements of the provision can file a complaint.Covers payee and holder in due course and not a mere holder or endorsee without consideration. 138.Kanchana Kamalanathan Vs Nagaraj). 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.P.P. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.). 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL... 138-.Held complaint is filed before cause of action had arisen. 141. 1881. 1881.Ravi Kumar Vs Rajesh Kumar R. Vs Union of India & Ors.) (D.Notice . (B. (Canbank Financial Services Ltd.Complaint is maintainable .Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139-.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of List-I (Union List.) (D. 140. 1881. 1881.Quashing of complaint sought on the plea that notice is beyond 15 days . 138-. place where cheque was handed over and place where it was dishonoured have jurisdiction.Complaint sought to be quashed on the plea that petitioner is not incharge of the Company or at least not being one of its Directors . 139. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (KERALA) : 1995(1) KLT 259 : 1995 CRL.Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.`Another person' . 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 565 (MADRAS) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0123 : 1995 (84) COMP. (B..P.Cheque dishonoured for the second time Complaint filed on that basis . 138-. (Punam Sinha Vs Tarsem Goyal). 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0441 : 1996 BJ 0496 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0195 . i. 1881.Both places.Matters covered by S. dishonour etc..Dishonour of cheque . L.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. Vs Union of India & Ors.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Initial burden lies on complaint to show that cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt or other liability .) (B.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL.Mohan Krishna & Ors.J.Mohan Krishna & Ors.If the payee does not choose to act on the first presentation. 138.P. 1881. L. & Ors.e.Jain). 1881.Then only burden shifts to the drawer of the cheque to rebut that presumption. 1881. 141-.J.Complaint filed within that 15 days period .) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. (Lakshmanan Vs Sivarama Krishnan). LJ 1384 (KER..) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. 138-. 138-. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.`Stop payment' . (Bhagat Ram Vs State of Punjab & Anr. 138. 138-..Jain). 1996 (SUPP.Dishonour of cheque .) 0653 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0488 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0024 .Berlina Construction. 138-. (Stalion Shox Pvt. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 129 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0406 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0071 : 1994 (1) KLT 0930 #25: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) ISJ (BANKING) 0051 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL. Ss.Held. L.No ground to quash the proceedings . & Ors.Notice is valid..From the date of its issue to the date it bears it is only a bill of exchange and becomes cheque only on the date shown therein .Arumugham Vs M.Held. 1973.). 1881.Ram Singh Amarsingh & Ors.. whenever a Magistrate is of the opinion that the accused is guilty and that he ought to receive a punishment more severe than such a Magistrate is empowered to give. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 580 (MADRAS) #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (M/s.Cheques issued at place `M' and the same presented for collection at place `M' .Ltd. 1881. Vs Auto Tensions (P) Ltd. Court at place `M' has jurisdiction to try the case.#18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 164 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.) ISJ (BANKING) 0051 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 73 (DELHI) : 1990 . & Ors.If in the sworn statement the complainant states that cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient amount. 1881. CASES 0396 : 1993 (51) DLT 0161 : 1994(79) COMP CAS 808 #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-. 138-..Notice issued within 15 days of last dishonour .1996 (SUPP. Ss. Co.Sentence which could be awarded more than what the Magistrate empowered to award . (Criminal Procedure Code. (Tarsem Lal Vs Prem Nath Palta).Power of attorney holder can file a complaint on behalf of the payee. 138-.Jurisdiction . (Stalion Shox Pvt.It could be seen only during the course of trial . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 73 (DELHI) : 1990 . & Ors. 138-.. (Ravi Vs Mohammed Ismail). 1973. (Abdul Rahim Vs Amal Kumar).`Refer to drawer' are susceptible to more explanations than one .`Debt or other liability' . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 60 (CALCUTTA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0368 #20: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2408 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Validity period of six months is to be reckoned from the date mentioned on the face of the cheque. CASES 0296 #19: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. CASES 0396 : 1993 (51) DLT 0161 : 1994(79) COMP CAS 808 #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act...) ISJ (BANKING) 0051 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.1996 (SUPP.Prayer for quashing on this score decline. CASES 0907 : 1995 BJ 0547 : 1995 (2) CRIMES 0140 : 1994 (2) ALT (CRL.Held. 1881. 1881.One complaint filed of dishonour of 11 cheques No prejudice shown to be caused to accused . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 73 (DELHI) : 1990 . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 152 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0495 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.K. 219). 1881. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 278 (MADRAS) : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0467 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Co.J.Issued at the address. 1881.Cheque against dishonoured . Co. (Sunil Behl Vs M/s.Complaint to be read alongwith the sworn statement . (Rahmathullah Vs Ramalingam).Notice . (N.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .) 0003 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0187 : 1993 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL.29(2) and 325(2).) 0692 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0380 : 1994 (81) COMP. Vs M/s.Kandasamay Textiles & Co.Cheque whether dishonoured due to insufficient funds or not .Ltd. 138-. it is sufficient compliance if it is stated that the accused owed the sum to the complainant on account of loan and salary..) 0288 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0585 : 1995 CRL.) 0003 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0187 : 1993 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. (Stalion Shox Pvt.Presented again .) 0003 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0187 : 1993 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL.Should not be read disjunctively .). 1881.212. 1881. accused could raise this point before trial Court (Criminal Procedure Code.Ltd. Vs Auto Tensions (P) Ltd..Held. which was insufficient but given by the drawn himself .Prayer for quashing complaint declined. Vs Auto Tensions (P) Ltd.Post dated cheque .. CASES 0396 : 1993 (51) DLT 0161 : 1994(79) COMP CAS 808 #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Cheque dishonoured by the bank at place `J' and intimation of dishonour received at place `M' . 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 698 (MADRAS) : 1985 (82) COMP.). 138-. 138-. he may record his opinion and forward the accused to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to whom he is subordinate. 138-. 138-. it is sufficient.Punnusamy). 1881.) ISJ (BANKING) 0028 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL. received late Period is to be computed fro the date of receipt of A.Held. (Sunil Behl Vs M/s. (Satish Kumar Premchand Jain Vs Krishangopal)..Cheque again present . & Construction Ltd..Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 164 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL. & Construction Ltd.Cheque again dishonoured . 138-. (M/s.Cheque can be presented any number of times . the foundation has been laid to make the petitioner liable . 1881.Complaint filed while civil suit pending .: 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL.Berlina Construction.Complaint .Verma Plywood Company).) 0653 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0488 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0024 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL... 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 173 (BOMBAY) : 1990 . (M/s. Vs M/s.1996 (SUPP.Chahal Engg.).Dishonour of cheque . (M/s. (Satish Kumar Premchand Jain Vs Krishangopal).D.Limitation .C. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 138.e. 1881.Specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioners are responsible for the business of the firm. (Santa Priya Engineer Vs Udaya Sankar Das).But cheque issued thereafter .. 1881. 138-. CASES 0452 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 138-.Notice issued . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (CALCUTTA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0468 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0704 : 1994 BJ 0408 : 1994 CRLJ 0887 #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0145 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0845 #11: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.1996 (SUPP. 138-. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0145 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0845 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. then Court of competent jurisdiction is entitled to take cognizance and the High Court will not exercise jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.Cheque .Verma Plywood Company).) 0336 #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint is time barred.Verma Plywood Company). 142-. 138-.Can be presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity. Vs M/s. both remedies.On such dishonour of the cheque a fresh right accrues in favour of the complainant every time and he can enforce that right by initiating proceedings under Section 138 of the Act. i. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 184 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0310 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 173 (BOMBAY) : 1990 .Held.Chahal Engg... 1881.Complaint is maintainable. (Kahan Chand Gupta Vs Raj Kumar).Notice given .To make out an offence conditions to be satisfied are (1) Cheque must have been issued to discharge a liability (2) cheque must have been dishonoured for insufficiency of funds (3) Notice must be given by the payee to the drawer (4) The drawer's failure to pay the amount of cheque within fifteen days of service of the notice.) ISJ (BANKING) 0028 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.A. whichever is earlier .1996 (SUPP. if the petitioner has a defence that he is not incharge of the business or responsible to the company. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0145 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0845 #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. the date of issue of the notice and the date of filing of the complaint in Court and if these facts are borne out from the allegations in the complaint. Vs M/s. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 173 (BOMBAY) : 1990 . he can show it to the trial Court Complaint cannot be quashed on this ground.The Court has to look into the main features viz.) 0704 : 1994 BJ 0408 : 1994 CRLJ 0887 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0542 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0560 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0043 : 1994 (2) BCLR 0052 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0066 : 1994 BJ 0001 . 138-. CASES 0452 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.Chahal Engg.If main features of S. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .138 are borne out from the allegations of the complaint then High Court will not interfere .D. the date of issue of the cheque.Sleeping partner . & Construction Ltd. criminal complaint and civil suit are separate and not alternate.) ISJ (BANKING) 0028 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881.) 0704 : 1994 BJ 0408 : 1994 CRLJ 0887 #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice again issued and on failure to make the payment within 15 days of the service of notice complaint filed .. the date of dishonouring of the cheque by the Bank. (Satish Kumar Premchand Jain Vs Krishangopal).Transaction taking place before enforcement of amended act . 1881..Cause of action accrues only on failure to make the payment within fifteen days of the service of notice.Dishonour of cheque . Six months period shall be calculated from the date which the cheque bears.Dismissed for default .C.). 138. (Sunil Behl Vs M/s. CASES 0452 #13: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.#12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881. (Umesh Kumar Vs M/s.Kiran Vs L.Chaturvedi Vs Karnail Singh Chauhan). 1881..Case restored.Name of accused allowed to be corrected as `B' son of `A' .).C.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Quashing of summoning order .It does not invalidate the notice. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561 .Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Pushpa Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Sharma).) 0517 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Corporation).Essential requirements of clause (b) & (c) of the proviso to S. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561 #22: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Cheque presented several times . 1881.Kiran Vs L. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 295 (KERALA) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Smt. (Ninan Vs Rufus Olivero)..Cheque drawn on bank at place `M' and cheque presented for collection at place `M' .Order set aside .Berlina Construction. 1881.) 0357 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0683 : 1993 (3) SLJ 2827 #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..No illegality .Corporation). 142-. 138-.Complaint filed at place `T' where transaction creating liability had taken place . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 384 (P&H) : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.Post dated cheque .Notice .. 140-. 142-. (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors.Proceedings are maintainable on the basis of subsequent dishonour.N.T. (S.`Mens rea' is not an essential ingredient for constituting an offence under S.Moudgil Carpets & Rugs & Ors.Accused raising plea that process against him should not have been issued . 1881.. (Dr.) 0517 #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice issued only when the cheque was dishonoured for the last time .) 0653 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0488 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0024 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL.Cannot be said that complainant failed to appear .Complaint and the summoning order quashed.Jurisdiction .138 . 138. (Rahmathullah Vs Ramalingam). 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Complaint filed against `A' son of `B' . 138.and cognizance taken .138 not fulfilled .Dishonour of cheque .Drawer of the cheque insolvent .Some more amount claimed in the notice .T. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 278 (MADRAS) : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0467 #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.140 which excludes the defence that the drawer had no reason to believe that the cheque issued by him may be dishonoured on presentment not unreasonable or violative of article 14 of the Constitution.).) 0258 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (S.Corporation). 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 333 (P&H) : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. 138. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 333 (P&H) : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. 142-. 1881.S. 142-.C. 138.. 138-.Court at place `T' has jurisdiction.Proper for trial court to have adjourned the case for giving notice .. (Dr.It does not absolve the accused from the offence.Quashing of complaint Fact that the process has already been issued is no bar to drop the proceedings if the complaint on the very face of it does not disclose any offence against the accused.Chaturvedi Vs Karnail Singh Chauhan). 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held. 138-. Vs Union of India & Ors.N..Notice not issued to the parties . the Magistrate may reconsider the issue & to decide accordingly.Kiran Vs L.Case taken up in absence of parties or their counsel as it was declared holiday . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (P&H) : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL. 138-.Correction in the name of accused . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 164 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL. 1881..Order allowing correction in the name of accused upheld. 1881. (S. 138-. P. 141. Vs Hanutmal Jain). (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (A...) 0679 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment and that can be the place where the Bank to which the cheque was issued is located .C.Five cheques involved .Terms used by Bank have no relevance .Single complaint filed Complaint is maintainable..) 0366 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0141 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0350 : 1994 CRL. (Kapil Mehra Vs Sanjeev Jain).Words `Banking.J. (New Haryana Transport Co. 142-. Cheques.It can also be the place where the cheque was issued or delivered . 0411 : 1994 (1) ALT (CRL.Sufficient funds in account .) 0443 #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Kiran Vs L. 138-.Held.Company . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (A.. Court at place `A' has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.K.G.G.) 0015 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0198 : 1994 (1) AWR 0073 : 1993 (2) APLJ 0511 : 1993 APLJ (CRL. 46 .) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 138. 138-. 138. 1881. L.. 1881. (S. Vs State-Delhi Administration).P.Ramayya).P. 0411 : 1994 (1) ALT (CRL.) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0660 : 1993 MWN 144 . 1881.Jurisdiction .) 0474 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561 #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.) 0015 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0198 : 1994 (1) AWR 0073 : 1993 (2) APLJ 0511 : 1993 APLJ (CRL.) 0677 : (1994) 0003 CUR CRI R 1497 #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.A debtor must seek his creditor Unless the place for making payment is specified a debtor must make the payment at the normal place of business of the creditor. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 710 (P&H) : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL. Union List.The Court within whose jurisdiction any of the above said places falls has got jurisdiction to try the offence. (T. 141-.) 0677 : (1994) 0003 CUR CRI R 1497 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 267 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0225 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude .P. 1881. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0078 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL. 138-.Jurisdiction ..) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Constitution of India. 1881. 138-.. (Sushil Singla Vs Haripal Singh). CASES 0381 : 1990 DRJ 0029 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..#23: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. complaint and summoning order quashed. 138-. (Maheshwari Proteins Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors. Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss. 138-. as there is no allegation in the complaint against the petitioners that they are incharge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business.Corporation). 1881..`Stop payment' . 1881.).) 0679 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL. Promissory Notes and other like instruments' .Court is to found out a question of fact whether there was insufficiency of funds or funds were not arranged for.Occurring in Entries Nos.Jurisdiction . Entries 45. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 7 (A.J.Held.) 0474 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL.) 0612 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0802 : 1995 AIHC 0636 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0639 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L. 140.Ramayya). Bills of Exchange.) 0235 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0080 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0019 : 1994 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL.) 0366 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0141 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0350 : 1994 CRL.Held.Cheque dishonoured with endorsement `Refer to drawer' . (Adapa Bhogi Raju Vs S. 142-.Once it is admitted that accused issued cheques to the complainant then the burden is very heavy on him to prove that the cheques were not issued in connection with the transaction as alleged by the complainant.Main settlement made and cheques issued at placed `A' .Khungar Vs Sanjay Ghai).Directors of the company sought quashment of complaint on the plea that they were neither in charge of nor responsible for the affairs of the company . 139. 1881. (Adapa Bhogi Raju Vs S.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Seventh Schedule.No defence is made out. 1881. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (DELHI) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0142 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. Vs Sri Amitava Goswami).K.Cause of action for prosecution does not arise by mere presentation of the cheque and by its dishonour . or both of them together.Khungar Vs Sanjay Ghai).) 0612 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0802 : 1995 AIHC 0636 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0639 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..P. 1881. 1881.CHQ.Dishonour of cheque . 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0490 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0286 : 1995 (82) COMP. 138-. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0078 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL. 138-..Held.P.Cause of action . the Magistrate has power to take cognizance of the offence under S. 138-.Notice of demand received by one of the accused .J. 138-.Cheque dishonoured . 3515 : 1993 (2) KLT 0831 : 1993 MWN (DIS. (Iqbal Vs Uthaman).. either the Company alone or the person in charge of the business of the company alone. 1881.138 of the Act.Notice issued .#7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. CASES 0045 : 1994 CRL. can be prosecuted for the offence under S.Cheque dishonoured .. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0125 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL. (Chelakkannu Nadar Vs Simon). 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 81 (CALCUTTA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0679 #9: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cause of action accrues only on following the procedure prescribed under clause (c) of proviso to S.`Cause of action' . (Inderjeet Bhatia Vs State of U.Accused promising to make payment within four months . 1881. prosecution launched is not valid.Accrues only on failure to make . 1881.. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 646 (A. cause of action arose to the complainant at Khanna. L.Cheque presented for collection at Khanna and information from bank about dishonour of cheque received at Khanna Unless the place for making the payment is specified.C. 142-. a debtor must make the payment at the normal place of business of the creditor .Notice to others received back with endorsement `Out of station' and `left without address' No illegality .. 138-.482) (Mohammed Rasheed Vs State of Kerala). CASES 0726 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0072 : 1993(2) KLT 0237 : 1993 MWN 0146 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Notice issued and prosecution launched thereafter .) 0221 #8: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. S.Jurisdiction .Cheque drawn on a bank at Aurangabad and handed over to the complainant at Auran-gabad .Held.Notice Issued .Part payment made .P. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (ALLAHABAD) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0086 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 81 (CALCUTTA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0679 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.. (Iqbal Vs Uthaman).138 of the Act..) 0474 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL. 1881. (Adapa Bhogi Raju Vs S.Cheque presented again . 1881.Held.) 0015 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0198 : 1994 (1) AWR 0073 : 1993 (2) APLJ 0511 : 1993 APLJ (CRL.G.Offence when committed by a Company.No inference in the summoning order. 1973. 0674 : 1993 (2) KLT 1027 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0763 #14: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..J. & Ors. Vs Sri Amitava Goswami).Accused not making payment . (Cr.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. it cannot be said that there is no debt due and that there is no contract.J. L. L. 138. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0098 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0328 : 1995 (84) COMP.Cheque dishonoured for the second time .138 of the Act.Is os no avail for evading prosecution.No form is prescribed for drafting a complaint . 1881. CASES 0439 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0382 : 1994 CRL.Complaint should contain allegations of the ingredients of the offence.) 0329 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0030 : 1997 (89) COMP.. CASES 0726 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0072 : 1993(2) KLT 0237 : 1993 MWN 0146 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ancon Engineering Co. 138-.) 0366 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0141 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0350 : 1994 CRL.) 0677 : (1994) 0003 CUR CRI R 1497 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138-.If facts set out in the complaint constitute the offence alleged to have been committed by some person.Cheque issued pursuant to the settlement arrived at between complainant and the accused . 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0490 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0286 : 1995 (82) COMP. 138-.Since the complainant has normal place of business at Khanna It was for the respondent to discharge the debt by making payment at Khanna . (T. (Ancon Engineering Co.P. 0411 : 1994 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0679 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL. where there is a settlement and cheques are issued in pursuance of the settlement.).Ramayya). the payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice. (T.K.Khungar Vs Sanjay Ghai), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0078 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0612 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0802 : 1995 AIHC 0636 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0639 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Quashing of complaint - In proceedings u/s 482 Cr.P.C. High Court is not justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations in the FIR or the complaint. (T.K.Khungar Vs Sanjay Ghai), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0078 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0612 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0802 : 1995 AIHC 0636 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0639 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused tendered the amount after receipt of notice - Complainant refused to receive - Accused cannot be visited with any consequence envisaged for non-payment of amount. (Pradeep Chandran Vs Nimmi), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 426 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0207 : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0697 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0447 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1027 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 2768 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Mere fact that the account was short of the amount when the cheque was drawn, is of no conse-quence. (Pradeep Chandran Vs Nimmi), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 426 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0207 : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0697 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0447 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1027 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 2768 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Refer to drawer' - Does not mean that cheque is returned due to insufficiency of amount in the account. (Pradeep Chandran Vs Nimmi), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 426 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0207 : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0697 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0447 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1027 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 2768 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Notice issued - Complaint not filed - Cheque presented again and cheque again dishonoured - Complaint filed - Held, complaint is barred by limitation. (K.D.Sales Vs The Morinda Co-operative Sugar Mills), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0103 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0138 : 1994 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0148 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0499 : 1994 (1) MWN (DIS.CHQ.) 0233 : 1994 (1) SLJ 0449 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days notice period - Complaint is premature. (Ashok Verma Vs Ritesh Aero), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 443 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Jurisdiction - Neither Ingredients of the offence spelled out nor disclosed as to how the court at place `M' has jurisdiction - Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Mohinder Singh Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0572 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0549 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued on different dates and presented to bank on different occasions - Last cheque dishonoured on 30.7.1990 and notice given on 23.1.1991 - Complaint does not prima facie show commission of offence. (Mohinder Singh Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0572 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0549 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - A power of attorney holder of a payee or a holder in due course can make a complaint u/s 142 of the Act. (Hamsa Vs Ibrahim), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0722 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0314 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0159 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0800 : 1994(1) CRIMES 0395 : ILR 1994 (1) KERALA 0622 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Notice as to make payment within 30 days Notice not confirming to specification of statute - Complaint amounted to abuse of the process of Court. (M/S.Embee Textiles Limited & Anr. Vs Sadhu Ram & Co.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0727 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0349 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0068 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0394 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence is committed only when cheque bounces due to inadequate balance in the account - If cheque is returned unpaid for other grounds, no offence is committed. (Shri Swaminathan Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0559 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0507 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0677 : 1996 (85) COMP. CASES 0005 : 1994 (1) PLR 0389 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Insufficiency of funds - Becomes insignificant in a case where the drawer of the cheque issues instructions to his bank to stop the payment. (Shri Swaminathan Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0559 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0507 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0677 : 1996 (85) COMP. CASES 0005 : 1994 (1) PLR 0389 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint power to be exercised sparingly. (Banarsi Dass Vs Mohinder Kumar Pahwa), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0168 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0220 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued in favour of self - Name of complainant appeared on the back of cheque - Cheque shows that it was in favour of self or bearer - Held, complainant is holder in due course. (Banarsi Dass Vs Mohinder Kumar Pahwa), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0168 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0220 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Giving Notice' - Meaning - Does not mean delivery of notice to the drawer of the cheque - If the payee has despatched notice to the correct address of the drawer reasonably ahead of the expiry of fifteen days, it can be regarded that he made the demand by giving notice within the statutory period. (Madhu Vs Omega Pipes Ltd.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 594 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0343 : 1995(1) REC CRI R 0296 : 1994(1) BCLR 0558 : 1996(85) COMP. CASES 0263 : 1994(3) CRIMES 0071 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 3439 : 1994(1) ALT(CRL.) 603 : 1994(1) KLT 0441 : : 1994 ISJ(BANKING) 0343 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Even if there is no express or explicit averment in the complaint, court would be justified in taking cognizance of the offence if the ingredients can be deducted or discerned from implications or inferences from the com-plaint. (Balakrishna Pillai Vs Abdullakutty), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 606 (KERALA) : 1995 ISJ (BANKING) 0189 : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0515 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0366 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0561 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0327 : 1994 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0326 : 1994 (1) KLT 0411 #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Jurisdiction - Drawer of cheque residing at place `N' - Person in whose favour cheque drawn residing at place `k' - Non payment having taken place at place `K' Court at said place has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and try the offence. (Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 : 1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355 : 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0306 : 1993 MAHLJ 0630 #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - No new material can be introduced by either party in support of their contentions before the High Court in proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. (Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 : 1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355 : 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0306 : 1993 MAHLJ 0630 #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence is committed only on non payment within 15 days notice period-Court is barred is barred from taking cognizance of complaint in respect of such an offence prior to expiry of 15 days within which drawer has to make payment Time frame prescribed under S.138 has to be strictly construed. (Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 : 1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355 : 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0306 : 1993 MAHLJ 0630 #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cir-cumstances under which cheque dishonoured to be totally ignored - Pay-ment not made within prescribed time Offence is made out. (Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 : 1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355 : 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0306 : 1993 MAHLJ 0630 #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Quashing of complaint - Order challenged on the plea that a blank cheque had been deposited with the complainant on 26.7.1990 and not on 11.7.1991 the date f the cheque and that the complainant had issued the receipt on 26.7.1990 and thus prosecution is barred by limita-tion - Held, all these are matters of evidence to be received by the Magistrate in the trial and on mere ante dated receipt without opportunity to the complainant, the complaint cannot be thrown or rejected at this stage. (Inderjeet Bhatia Vs State of U.P. & Ors.), 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (ALLAHABAD) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0086 #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Prosecution launched on the basis of dishonour of cheque presented for the second time - Held cheque can be presented any number of times within a period of six months of the date of its issuance or within the period of its validity whichever is earlier. (MADAN MOHAN Vs K.M.MENON & OTHER), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 35 (DELHI) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0190 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0233 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0185 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0096 : 1993 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0008 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 1167 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 2654 : 1993 (2) CCR 0155 : 1993 RLR 0119 : 1993 (1) ALL CR L R 0546 : 1993 JCC 0001 : 1993 (1) CLR 0378 : 1993 (50) DLT 0033 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - To avail the penal remedy the creditor is expected to invoke the provisions of the Act Immediately - Complainant not expected to slumber over it and to issue notice after its another alleged dishonouring. (Mrs.Rita Khanna Vs M/s.R.S.Traders), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 488 (P&H) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0417 : 1993 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0122 : 1996 (85) COMP. CASES 0446 : 1993 (2) PLR 0113 : 1993 (2) CRLT 0237 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheques - `Payment stopped by drawer' - No offence is made out - Court can take cognizance only when cheque is dishonoured either due to inadequacy of funds or due to the amount exceeding the limit. (M/S.Embee Textiles Limited & Anr. Vs Sadhu Ram & Co.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0727 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0349 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0068 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0394 #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Com-plaint not filed Cheque presented again and dishonoured - Complaint filed - Successive dishonour of the cheque on different occasions presented within its period of validity will have to be construed as constituting separate cause of action for the initiation of a prosecution. (Sivasankar Vs Santhakumari), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 143 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0702 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0330 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0492 : 1991 LW (CRL.) 0481 : 1991 (1) MWN (CRL.) 0265 #17: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint dismissed - Revision against - Accused of the offence has no right of audience. (Sivasankar Vs Santhakumari), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 143 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0702 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0330 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0492 : 1991 LW (CRL.) 0481 : 1991 (1) MWN (CRL.) 0265 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Refer to drawer' - Current account statement showing that there had never been the credit balance in the account - sufficient reasons to proceed as there was a prima facie case. (AD.Circle Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sri Shankar & Ors.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 210 (DELHI) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0028 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0038 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0525 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0178 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0764 : 1993 BJ 0603 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 1145 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Stop payment' - Unless there is an allegation that the cheque bounced on account of want of sufficient funds, the complaint is not maintainable. (Ashok Vs Vasudevan Moosad), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 258 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0712 : 1994 (1) BANK CLR 0046 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Returned with endorsement `unclaimed' - Amounts to acceptance and receipt of notice - Complaint is maintainable. (Sosamma Vs Rajendran), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (KERALA) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0065 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0213 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0434 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0279 : 1994 (80) COMP. CASES 0503 : 1994 BJ 0659 : 1995 BJ 0275 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 2196 : 1993 (1) KLT 0629 #21: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Any debt or other liability - Consideration of cheque was towards price of bricks - Plaintiff admitting having receipts in support of such supplies - Receipts not produced - No explanation given as to why receipts not produced - Non production of the receipts leads to a presumption that either plaintiff has no such receipts or if produced, the same would not have supported the case of plaintiff. (Milkimal Peshwani Vs Sudhir Kumar Pradhan), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 280 (ORISSA) : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0169 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0288 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cause of action Arises only on the expiry of 15 days notice period - Complaint filed before this period is not maintainable. (Madhavan Vs Addl.Judicial First Class Magistrate), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0135 : 1993 (82) COMP. CASES 0753 : 1993 (1) KLT 0717 #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued on 14.1.1991 for supply of food on 20.1.1991 - Food supplied - cheques received back with endorsement `Refer to drawer' Contention of accused that when cheque was issued there was no debt or other liability which was legally enforceable against him does not hold good. (Ramesh Kumar Handa & Ors. Vs Willson, Manager, Coral, Tourist Complex), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 345 (P&H) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0314 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0689 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proprietorship concern - Cheque dishonoured Complaint by employee u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act and S.420 Indian Penal Code - Held, complainant (employee of sole proprietorship firm) is neither the payee nor the holder in due course of the cheque - Complaint u/s. 138 is not maintainable - Complaint u/s 420 IPC can be instituted by an employee of sole proprietorship firm - Summoning order u/s 138 Negotiable Instruments Act quashed and trial court ordered to proceed u/s 420 IPC according to law. (U.C.Saxena Vs Madan Mohan), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (P&H) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0041 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0391 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0679 : 1993 (1) PLR 0161 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fresh cause of action accrues on every occasion when cheque is dishonoured - Period for sending notice demanding payment is to be reckoned from the date of receipt of intimation of last presentation. (Rakesh Nemkumar Porwal Vs Narayan Dhondu Joglekar & Anr.), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 1 (BOMBAY) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0251 : 1993 (2) REC CRI R 0210 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0402 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0386 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0511 : 1993 (78) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 0680 : 1994 (3) BCR 0355 : 1992 (3) CCR 2711 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0306 : 1993 MAHLJ 0630 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Stop payment' - Plea that payment was stopped prior to presentation of cheque - No ground to quash complaint. (Uggar Sain & Ors. Vs The State of Punjab & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 463 (P&H) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0511 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0444 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0682 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque can be presented to Bank any number of times within a period of six months from the date of cheque or within the period of its validity, whichever Is earlier, but complaint can be filed for offence only once either after dishonour of cheque for first time or after last dishonour of cheque. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Private complaint be made - Court can take cognizance of offence if allegations In complaint show that complainant has complied with provisions of Ss.138 and 142 - Correctness of defence plea in reply notice to be considered only at the trial and not at the time of taking cognizance of offence-Defence theory available in documents filed need not be mentioned in complaint. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint filedQuashing of-such complaints are cognizable by Courts of competent jurisdiction - Application u/s482 can be entertained by the High Court only if prima facie case is not made out on the allegations in complaint - Non mention of defence theory in complaint not a ground for entertaining such application-It is not for High Court to go into rival contentions - Inherent power cannot be invoked to quash proceedings on complaint requiring enquiry and trial. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque -'Refer to Drawer'- Meaning - In normal banking parlance, `Refer to Drawer' means that cheque is returned as funds are not available in Drawer's account. (M/s.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s.Aildas & Company & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.P) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (b) - Notice - Addressee deliberately evading receipt of registered notice- Amounts to constructive service of notice. (Prasanna Vs Vijaylakshmi), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 56 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0436 #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque returned as 'Account closed' - No offence is made out. (Prasanna Vs Vijaylakshmi), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 56 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0436 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured-Prosecution is maintainable only when all the ingredients of S.138 are satisfied - Notice issued mentioning the dishonour of cheques and claiming vacant possession of flats - No demand made for payment of cheque - No allegation of failure to pay amount within fifteen days - Ingredients of clauses (b) & (c) of S.138 not satisfied - Prosecution under section 138 of the Act is not sustainable. (Ram Kumar soni & Anr. Vs G.Ravindranath & Anr.), 1993 CIVIL CASES 108 (A.P.) #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque Jurisdiction - Cheque drawn at place `K' and presented for collection at place `H' - Received endorsement about dishonour of cheque at place `H' - Held, Court at place `H' where part of cause at action arose, has got jurisdiction to try the case. (M/S Goutam T.V.Centre Vs M/s Apex Agencies, Hyderabad & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 137 (A.P.) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0341 : 1993 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0152 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0389 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0723 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1004 : 1992 (3) ALT (CRL.) 0441 #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso (a) - Post dated cheque - To be treated to have been drawn on the date it is delivered and not to be treated as drawn on the date it bears. (Javid Ahmed Vs Syed Azmathulla Hussaini & Anr.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 152 (A.P.) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0447 : 1993 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0290 : 1993 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0047 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0316 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0299 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 2359 : 1992 (3) ALT (CRL.) 0477 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0071 : 1993 APLJ (CR.) 0177 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0325 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Private complaint filed Magistrate referring case to police for enquiry who laid charge sheet later - Magistrate taking cognizance of case on police report - Not legal - Procedure prescribed in Chapter XV, Cr. RC. relating to complaints to be followed. (Y.Venkateswara Rao Vs M/s Mahee Handlooms (P) Ltd. rep. by its Managing Director & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (A.P.) : 1990 - 1996 (SUPL.) ISJ (BANKING) 0804 : 1993 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0787 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0282 : 1993 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0189 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0217 : 1994 (79) COMP. CASES 0206 : 1992 (3) ALT (CRL.) 0073 : 1993 (1) CCR 0237 : 1993 CRLJ 2362 : 1992 APLJ (CRL.) 0327 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Death of complainant - In appropriate cases the Magistrate can grant permission to the son of the deceased complainant to proceed with the complaint. (Jayaranjan Vs Jayaranjan), 1993 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 718 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0328 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0574 : 1995 (82) COMP. CASES 0629 : 1995 BJ 0703 : 1993 (2) CRIMES 0666 : 1992(2) KLT 586 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused having conceded to make payment but not paying and filing the petition to quash criminal proceedings against him - Amounts to abuse of process of Court-Not entitled to relief under section 482 Cr.P.C. (M.Venkateswara Rao Vs Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A.P.) : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0468 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured with endorsement `Refer to Drawer' - Inference cannot be drawn that cheque is returned on account of insufficiency of funds - Cheque might have been returned for various reasons - Offence u/s.138 is not made out. (Union Roadways (P) Ltd. Vs Shan Ramanlal), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 420 (A.P.) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0425 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0216 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0271 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0315 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0215 : 1992 (1) AWR 0372 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Debt or liability - Not necessary that it should be due from the drawer - Cheque can be issued for discharge of another man's debt or liability. (Alexander Vs Joseph Chacko), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 533 (KERALA) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0784 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0388 : 1993(2) KLT 326 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque returned with the endorsement `Account closed' - Amounts to an offence under section 138 of the Act. (Japahari Vs Priya), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0557 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0642 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0294 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0818 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0379 : 1993 (2) KLT 0141 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - `Account closed.' - Closure of account on a date antecedent to the date of cheque - It is open to the party to show that the cheque was drawn on date antecedent to the date which the cheque bears. (Japahari Vs Priya), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 563 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0557 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0642 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0294 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0818 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0379 : 1993 (2) KLT 0141 #18: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Delay in filing complaint - Delay can be condoned. (Janardhan Mohapatra Vs Saroj Kumar Choudhry), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1751 : 1993(6) OCR 242 #19: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complaint with a prayer to take cognizance or to convict an accused is a petition which term comes within the definition `application' as used in S.29 (2) Limitation Act and therefore S.5 Limitation Act applies. (Janardhan Mohapatra Vs Saroj Kumar Choudhry), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL. L.J. 1751 : 1993(6) OCR 242 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Firm which issued the cheques not made an accused in the complaint - Can be impleaded even after the expiry of the period of one month from the date of cause of action envisaged in S.138 of the act. (Playwood House Vs Wood Craft Products Ltd.), 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0650 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0311 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0182 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0565 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0434 : 1994 CRL. L.J. 0543 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0604 : 1993 MWN 0140 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque dishonoured - Jurisdiction Primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint - Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of money, i.e. the place where the bank is located or the place where the cheque was issued or delivered - Court within whose jurisdiction any of such place falls has jurisdiction to try the offence. (Muraleedharan Vs Pareed), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1992(1) KLT 59 #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - Cause of action arises at the place where the cheque is issued or the place where the cheque is presented for collection or the place where the cheque is dishonoured. (Pobathi Agencies Vs State of Karnataka), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Returned unpaid as `payment stopped by the drawer' - Not an offence as envisaged by S.138 - Offence only when cheque bounces due to insufficient balance in the account. (1990 Civil Court CAses 832 (P&H) followed). (Rama Gupta & others Vs M/s.Bakeman's Home Products Ltd.), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 381 (P&H) : Notice to company cannot be deemed to be a notice to the Directors .1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0269 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL.. CASES 0565 : 1992 (1) PLR 0599 #5: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-. (A. CASES 0371 : 1992 BJ 0692 : 1992 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL.Liability of company to pay . 138-.Offence is committed by M.No such allegation ..Complainant has to allege in the complaint against the company that the offence has been committed by its Directors.).`Refer to drawer' . (Dilip Kumar Jaiswal Vs Debapriya Banerjee).Post dated cheque ..138 is not attracted.Company is maker of the cheque . 138-.Cheque issued on behalf of Company by its Director . 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 595 (KERALA): 1993 (1) RCR (CRL. 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 463 (P&H) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0208 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0218 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0301 : 1993 (76) COMP. 138-. 138. CASES 0685 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0810 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0495 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Petitioner Managing Director of two companies M&S .Bank memo not mentioning insufficiency of funds . 141-. (M. 1881. (Harbhajan Singh Kalra Vs State of Haryana and another). CASES 0749 : 1993 BJ 0184 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0374 : 1992 LW (CRL. cannot be gone into in a petition u/s.) 0141 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0035 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0279 : 1994 (79) COMP.Notice issued to Company and not to directors .) 0169 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0345 : 1993 (76) COMP.) 0347 : 1992(36) MLJ 102 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.`Payment stopped by drawer' .Venkateswara Rao Vs Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors.) 0386 : 1992 CRL. (Krishna Bai Vs Arti Press). 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (P&H) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0021 : 1992 (1) RCR (CRL. 1881.Complaint is maintainable when filed only against the person who issued the cheque. 1881. 1881.Cheque however issued by company M who has no liability to pay the amount .J.Cheque dishonoured . with their consent or connivance or neglect on their part . 138.Cheque dishonoured . 138-.Complaint is maintainable against the proprietor only. L.) 0169 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0345 : 1993 (76) COMP. 1881.) : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL. Managers et c..Complaint and summoning order quashed.There is no provision in the Act that Company has also to be prosecuted alongwith person who issued cheque on behalf of the Company . 1881. 138. 141-.Dishonour of cheque . 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (CALCUTTA) : 1992(2) KLT 35 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0208 : 1995 (2) BANKING CASES 0240 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0577 : 1996 BJ 0257 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0363 : 1995 CRL.). 1881. L. CASES 0371 : 1992 BJ 0692 : 1992 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL.Company . 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (P&H) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0021 : 1992 (1) RCR (CRL.Ingredients of offence u/s. 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 82 (KERALA) : 1996 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0091 : 1996 (2) CIVIL LJ 0469 : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL. (Harbhajan Singh Kalra Vs State of Haryana and another)..Cheque dishonoured . (Gulshan Rai Vs Anil Kumar).Dishonour of cheque .Cheque dishonoured .P. 0744 : 1992 (2) CCR 1484 : 1993 CC RULINGS 0032 : 1992 (2) SLJ 1231 : 1992 (2) ALLCRLR 0015 : 1993 (20) CRLT 0184 #24: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 388 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0263 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1992 (74) COMP. L. 1881.For the purpose of Cl...Whether there were sufficient funds in the Bank or not being a question of fact.138 of the Act stated in the complaint .S..Kumbhat Vs Peejay Rubber Industries Ltd.J. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A.(a) of the proviso it is to be considered to have drawn on the date it is delivered and not on the date it bears.C. CASES 0473 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 1047 : 1993 CRL. & Anr.Separate notice to the Director is not required. 138-.Issue of notice to the Director of the Company was required as the Director may have in order to avoid his criminal prosecution made payment of the disonoured cheque from the Private source.Notice issued to the Company is sufficient . 1881. (Sri Sivasakthi Industries Vs Arihant Metal Corporation).. 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 606 (MADRAS) .Not maintainable .Proprietary concern Complaint against . CASES 0565 : 1992 (1) PLR 0599 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Bhageerathy Vs Beena).J. 138-.Company not arrayed as accused . 3828 : 1995 (4) CCR 0049 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 3946 #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.482 Cr.R.P.No averment in the complaint t hat bank dishonoured the cheque for want of adequate funds in the account of the drawer .) 0468 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by Managing Director of Company - Company not impleaded as accused - Complaint cannot proceed against Managing Director. (Krishna Bai Vs Arti Press), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 606 (MADRAS) #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - No complaint filed Cheque presented for the second time & again dishonoured - Prosecution launched on the basis of second dishonour - Prosecution launched is valid. (1991 Civil Court Cases 512 (Kerala) followed). (Richard Samson Sherrat Vs State of A.P. & Another), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 730 (A.P.) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0502 : 1992 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0611 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0023 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0124 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0261 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0150 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 2566 : 1992 (2) APLJ 0027 : 1992 (1) AWR 0502 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Petitioner sleeping partner in firm - No allegation of her being incharge of affairs of firm - Summoning order passed against petitioner quashed To make a person liable, it is to be shown that he was incharge or responsible for conduct of business. (Amrit Rani Vs M/s.Malhotra Industrial Corporation), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 733 (P&H) : 1992 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0193 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0262 : 1992 (1) SLJ 0312 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Payment stopped by drawer - Even then offence is committed if drawer had not sufficient funds in the account - Offence u/s.138 does not depend on the endorsement made by the banker while returning the cheque. (Thomas Varghese Vs Jerome), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 782 (KERALA) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0517 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0288 : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0224 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0380 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0919 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 3080 : 1992 (1) KLT 0812 #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque returned as account closed by drawer Penal Provision of S.138 is not attracted. (Om Prakash Bhojraj Maniyar Vs Swati Girish Bhide and others), 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (BOMBAY) : 1993(1) BANKING CASES 0099 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0242 : 1992 (3) CRIMES 0306 : (1993) 78 COM. CAS> 0549 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence under - Compoundable. (M.Mohan Reddy Vs Jairaj D.Bhale Rao & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 77 (A.P.) : 1996 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0531 : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0184 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0024 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0333 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 1010 : 1996 (1) CCR 0516 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque issued by a partner on behalf of partnership firm - Cheque dishonoured - Notice sent to the partner who issued the cheque Held, notice is valid - It is not the requirement of law to send notice to each of the partners. (Anita Vs Anil K.Mehara), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 343 (P&H) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Account closed' - Closure of account is not a bar on Magistrate to take cognizance of complaint u/s.138 of the Act. (M/s.G.M.Mittal Stainless Steels Ltd. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Investment Trust Ltd. & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 87 (A.P.) : 1995 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.P.) 0737 : 1996 BJ 0253 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0379 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0410 #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque -Complaint filed within limitation - Complaint returned for some omission and Court did not specify time for compliance of that omission - Complaint if represented after limitation cannot be held to be barred. (D.Ramamoorthy Vs K.J.Duraisamy), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (MADRAS) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0863 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0654 : 1998 (93) COMP. CASES 0538 : 1996 BJ 0240 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0457 : 1995 (4) CCR 0119 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - The Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was dishonoured can entertain a complaint under S.138 of the Act. (Mohammed Kunhi Vs Abdul Kajeed), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 141 (KERALA) : 1995(2) KLT 900 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Offence is complete when payment is not made in response to the notice within the stipulated time - Court within whose jurisdiction the said tender has to be made also has the jurisdiction to try the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act. (Kirti Dal Udyog, Nagpur Vs Bhanwarlal Ramchandra Chandak), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 157 (BOMBAY) : 1996 (2) CIVIL LJ 0037 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0192 : 1996 (2) CCR 0706 : 1996 (1) MAH LJ 0164 : 1996 AIHC 0330 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Dishonour of cheque - Fine - Magistrate of the first class is empowered to impose a fine exceeding Rs.5, 000/-for offence u/s.138 of the Act. (Sahadevan Vs Sreedharan), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Partner - Whether ceased to be a partner - Held, it is not the relevant question which can be gone into in the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code. (Ajay Narain Aggarwal Vs Firm Madan Lal Rajinder Prasad & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 264 (P&H) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0567 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 2022 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Summoning order Revision against - Dismissed by Sessions Court -Second revision in the High Court - Not maintainable. (Ajay Narain Aggarwal Vs Firm Madan Lal Rajinder Prasad & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 264 (P&H) : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0567 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 2022 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque returned with endorsement `Refer to drawer' or `Instructions for stoppage of payment' or `Stamp exceeds arrangement' - Amounts to dishonour of cheque. (M/s.Electronics Trade & Technology Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s.Indian Technologist & Engineers (Electronics) Pvt.Ltd.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (S.C.) : 1996(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 99 (S.C.) : 1996(3) RCR (CRL.) 0593 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1996 BJ 0408 : 1996 (3) CRIMES 0082 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 1692 : 1996 (4) CCR 0083 : 1996 (2) SCC 0739 : 1996 SCC (CRL.) 0454 : AIR 1996 SC 2339 : 1996 (1) JT 0643 : 1996 (1) LW (CRL.) 0325 #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Post dated cheque - Shall be deemed to be drawn on the date it bears. (Anita Vs Anil K.Mehara), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 343 (P&H) #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Amount of loan due from accused - Issued 10 post dated cheques - Cheques dishonoured - One complaint in respect of all cheques is maintainable. (Anita Vs Anil K.Mehara), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 343 (P&H) #25: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Accused purchasing cutting machine from complainant and issuing post dated cheque - In case of any dispute matter to be referred to arbitration - Dishonour of cheque - Complaint u/s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act - Plea of accused that machinery was defective and matter was to be referred to Arbitration - Plea not tenable - Arbitration clause does not cover a criminal offence nor Section 34 Arbitration Act is attracted to criminal proceedings. (Prabir Roy Vs State of West Bengal), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 41 (CALCUTTA) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (CALCUTTA) 0103 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0308 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0370 : 1996 BJ 0387 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0454 #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Territorial jurisdiction For discharging the debt the petitioners had to find out his creditors - Since the creditors had office at Pehowa, the Courts there had territorial jurisdiction to try the matter. (M.M.Malik Vs Prem Kumar Goyal), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 501 (P&H) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0535 : 1991(2) REC CRI R 0015 : 1991 (2) BANKING CASES 0484 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0496 : 1992 (73) COMP. CASES 0425 : 1992 BJ 0412 : 1991 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0157 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 2594 : 1991 (1) PLR 0554 : 1991 (2) CLR 0366 : 1991 (18) CRLT 0097 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of complaint sought that cheque was got issued when petitioner was taken in police custody - This plea not taken by the petitioner in reply to the legal notice - Held, no case is made out of quashing of complaint. (Mahabir Parsad Jindal & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 432 (P&H) #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Questions of fact or mixed question of law and facts - Cannot be decided merely on the basis of allegations in the petition and affidavits. (M/s.Garg Forgings & Castings Ltd.& Ors. Vs M/s.Steel Strips Ltd.Chandigarh), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 588 (P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0799 : 1996 BJ 0554 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0559 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Quashing of complaint - Cheque presented through Bank at place `L' - Complaint filed at place `C' alleging that order for supply of goods was placed at place `C' - Remedy available to the petitioner by approaching Judicial Magistrate that process should not have been issued against him not availed - Held, once this remedy is available to the petitioners High Court is reluctant to invoke its inherent powers u/s.482 Cr.P.C. which are to be exercised with circumspection and in rarest of rare cases. (M/s.Garg Forgings & Castings Ltd.& Ors. Vs M/s.Steel Strips Ltd.Chandigarh), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 588 (P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.) 0799 : 1996 BJ 0554 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0559 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant seeking examination of Advocate who sent the reply to notice - Allowed - However, it will be open to the respondent to contend that this reply was not sent at his instance. (Shiv Kumar Verma Vs Chaman Lal), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (P&H) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Name of witness sought to be examined not mentioned in the list annexed to the complaint - Not a ground for not permitting the complainant to examine this witness. (Shiv Kumar Verma Vs Chaman Lal), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Part payment - No ground to quash the proceedings under S.482 Cr.P.C. - Such a plea can be taken before trial Court. (Minakshi Goyal Vs S.K.Sharma), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (P&H) : 1996 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0165 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0020 #8: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Complainant an executor under the Will of his father - Cannot be tread as the holder in due course. (Koya Moideen Vs Hariharan), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 382 (KERALA) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Payment countermanded by a stop memo - It is of no consequence - Proceedings under the Act can be initiated. (Calcutta Sanitary Wares Vs Jacob), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 259 (KERALA) : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0347 : 1991(1) KLT 0269 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Returned unpaid as `Payment stopped by the drawer' - not an offence as envisaged by S.138 - Offence only when cheque bounces due to insufficient balance in the account. (Abdul Samad Managing Director Vs Satya Narayan Mahawar), 1990 CIVIL COURT CASES 832 (P&H) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0134 : 1990 (2) CLR 0338 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - No complaint filed Cheque presented for the second time and again dishonoured - Prosecution launched on the basis of second dishonour - Prosecution launched is valid. (Mahadevan Sunil Kumar Vs Bhadran), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 512 (KERALA) : 1991 (1) BANKING CASES 0612 : 1991 (1) BCLR 0211 : 1992 (74) COMP. CASES 0805 : 1993 BJ 0569 : 1991 (1) KLT 0651 : 1991 (1) KLJ 0335 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Offence u/s 138 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act - Petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings - Question of fact involved relating to alleged offence viz whether the accused has to pay the money to the complainant and whether he had issued the cheque as well as other questions of fact had to be established on evidence There are no grounds to quash the proceedings. (P.T.V. Ramanujachari Vs Giridharilal Rathi & Anr.), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (A.P.) : 1992 (2) BANKING CASES 0591 : 1992 BJ 0388 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Proviso Cl. (a) - Post dated cheque - For the purpose of Cl. (a) of the proviso has to be considered to have been drawn on the date it bears and not on the date it is delivered. (Manoj K.Seth Vs Fernadez), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 637 (KERALA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0449 : 1991 (2) BANKING CASES 0318 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0385 : 1992 BJ 0394 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 3253 : 1991 (3) ILR (KER.) 0621 : 1991 (2) KLT 0065 : #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque dishonoured - No complaint filed Cheque presented for the second time and again dishonoured - Prosecution launched on the basis of second dishonour - Not valid. (1991 Civil Court Cases 512 (Kerala) overruled). (Kumaresan Vs Ameerappa), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 661 (KERALA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0459 : 1991(3) RCR (CRL.) 0172 : 1991(2) BCLR 0196 : 1993(1) BCLR 0164 : 1991(74) COMP. CASES 0848 : 1992(1) CRIMES 0023 : 1991(1) KLT 0797 : 1992 MWN (CRL.) 0008 #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - If the ingredients of the provision are satisfied Magistrate has necessarily to take cognizance - Magistrate has no right or power to refer it for investigation to the police just like a private complaint filed in accordance with the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code. (Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad & Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 680 (A.P.) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0146 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0201 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0339 : 1991 (3) CRIMES 0832 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 0597 : 1991 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0457 #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonoured - Complaint complying with all the ingredients of Ss. 138 & 142 - Held, there is absolutely no justification for the High Court to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad & Ors. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 680 (A.P.) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0146 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0201 : 1993 (76) COMP. CASES 0339 : 1991 (3) CRIMES 0832 : 1992 CRL. L.J. 0597 : 1991 (2) ALT (CRL.) 0457 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 142-- - Cheque - Dishonour - Police cannot entertain a complaint under Sections 3 & 5 Cr.P.C. - Holder of cheque has to file a complaint before Magistrate. (H.Mohan & Anr. Vs State of Karnataka), 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0237 : 1991 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0343 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0036 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0221 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0215 : 1992 (73) COMP. CASES 0560 : 1992 BJ 0520 : 1991 (2) CRIMES 0093 : 1991 CRL. L.J. 1866 : ILR 1991 (KAR) 0612 #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Closure of account - Does not constitute offence under S.138 of the Act. (Mallikarjun Traders, Sindhanur Vs B.Pandurang Setty & Anr.), 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 617(1) (KARNATAKA) : 1996 ISJ (BANKING) 0456 : 1996 (1) KARLJ 0522 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Accused alleging misuse of cheque - Held, that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.139 of the Act, opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. (T.Nagappa Vs Y.R.Muralidhar), 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Loan of Rs.25 lacs - Complainant himself was in debt - No evidence produced to prove financial viability of complainant to raise such huge amount - Conviction of accused merely because he admitted his signature on disputed cheque not proper - It does not relieve complainant from proving pre-existing debt or legal liability to pay amount shown in cheque. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Presumption - Rebuttal - Not necessary for accused to produce evidence - Accused can discharge the onus placed on him even on the basis of material brought on record by the complainant. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - `Legally enforceable debt' - Lack of pleading - There is no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability - The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability is on the accused which they have to discharge in the trial. (First Learning Quest Private Ltd. Vs M/s Tera Construction Private Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 578 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/s 139 - Available only when it is proved that cheque was drawn by accused - To draw a cheque it must be prepared by the drawer himself or cause the relevant details in the cheque to be filled up by another person under his instructions but the cheque shall be signed by the drawer himself - Name of payee not written - No evidence that complainant entered his name as payee as per instructions of accused - Held, a mere signature in the cheque or a writing of the amount or date in the cheque is not sufficient to conclude that the cheque is drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. (Jose Vs P.C.Joy), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque without consideration - Onus to prove is on person who asserts so - Accused neither examined himself nor examined any witness - Burden of proving that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of any debt or other liability was thus not discharged. (Kalim M.Khan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Presumption available u/ss 138, 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Rebuttal of presumption as to issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability - Complainant a businessman not producing any account to prove advancement of loan - Failure to produce even loan agreement - Presumption stands rebutted - To rebut presumption accused need not to lead positive evidence - Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability - Presumption as to - Rebuttable - To rebut presumption it is not necessary to lead positive evidence Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record - For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is to raise a probable defence - Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Signatures admitted - Held, once signatures in the impugned cheques were admitted then there is presumption u/s 139 of the Act. (A.B.M.Raja Sah Vs B.M.S.Srinivasa Sah), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (MADRAS) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402 (MADRAS) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttable presumption Presumption that cheque was issued for a debt or liability is in favour of holder of cheque - This is a rebuttable presumption which can be rebutted only by the person who drew the cheque. (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar), 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - The rebuttal would not have to be conclusively established - However, evidence must be adduced in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable - Standard of reasonability is that of a prudent man. (M/s.Coldspot Vs M/s.Naik Hotels & Ors.), 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 070 (BOMBAY) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Presumption Rebuttal - It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence - Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant - Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability - If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration - The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities - Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram), 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration - Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued against loan - Loan denied - No proof of lending money - Even month or year of loan not disclosed - Held, when complainant does not place on record any material of lending money then it is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant - Accused not guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act. (G.Veeresham Vs S.Shiva Shankar & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (A.P.) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Discharging of liability - Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back - No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged - Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable. (K.P.Rathikumar Vs N.K.Santhamma & Anr.), 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Available only when cheque is received by holder Cheque can be received in many ways i.e it can be handed over, it could be as a finder of a lost or misplaced cheque, it could be taken away by force, it could be by committing theft - Held, for drawing presumption u/s 139 of the Act, Court must be satisfied that the holder of the cheque 'received' the cheque by entitlement and that he did not procure it by any other means. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Presumption available is as to issuance of cheque for discharge of any debt or other liability - Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption u/s 139 of the Act. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Accused need not examine himself to rebut the presumption - He may discharge the burden on the basis of materials already brought on record. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #20: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of proof so as to prove a defence on the part of an accused is `preponderance of probabilities' - Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on records by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Question as to whether presumption stood rebutted or not has to be determined keeping in view the other evidences on record Stepping into the witness box by the appellant is not imperative - Background fact and the conduct of the parties together with their legal requirements are required to be taken into consideration. (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G.Hegde), 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 412 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 716 (S.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 983 (S.C.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.) 695 : 2008(1) RCR(CIVIL) 498 : 2008(1) RAJ 279 : 2008(1) SCALE 421 : AIR 2008 SC 1325 : 2008 CRILJ 1172 : 2008 AIRSCW 738 : 2008 CLC 305 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 219 : 2008(4) SCC 54 : 2008(2) SCC(CRI) 166 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Complainant not coming to Court with clean hands and his conduct not that of a prudent man - Accused thus discharges his burden to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act - Order of acquittal upheld. (John K.John Vs Tom Varghese & Anr.), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 655 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 974 (S.C.) : AIR 2008 SC 278 : 2008 CRILJ 434 : 2007 AIRSCW 6736 : 2008 CLC 214 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 129 : 2007(12) SCC 714 : 2007(12) SCALE 333 : 2007(7) SUPREME 484 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of proof on accused is only mere preponderance of probability - Where in a case complainant fails to prove that he had means to advance a huge amount as he himself had been borrowing money from others, the burden placed on accused stands discharged inspite of the fact that accused himself having not been examined as a witness - Accused acquitted. (K.Prakashan Vs P.K.Surenderan), 2007(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 429 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 713 (S.C.) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 371 (S.C.) #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139-- - Presumption - Available only qua the purpose for which the cheque is received i.e for discharge of a debt or liability - Court cannot presume that cheque is issued/executed/drawn by the accused. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 139, 138-- - Dishonour of cheque - Court is not bound to adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute - However, when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved, Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese), 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued towards time barred debt - Once the cheque is issued, accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt - Time barred debt is also valid consideration. (S.Parameshwarappa & Anr. Vs S.Choodappa), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Blank cheque - Even if the signature in the cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed by the accused. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Holder in due course - Means any person who for consideration became the possessor of promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer or the payee or indorsee thereof - `A' gave loan to `B' - Bank purchased cheque from `B' - `B' made an endorsement in favour of Bank - Bank becomes holder in due course - Cheque dishonoured - Complaint against `A' maintainable. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank), 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 ; 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Blank cheque - It cannot be presumed that an implied authority is given to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt etc. - There must be allegation in complaint and evidence that blank cheque was issued with implied authority to holder to fill up the same. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Time barred debt - Loan transaction taking place in 1994 and cheque for repayment of loan issued for the year 1999 - Loan amount became time barred in the year 1997 Held, there is no legal bar for the debtor agreeing to pay the time barred debt - No fresh consideration is required for debtor's promise to pay the time barred debt - Cheque constitutes an agreement or promise by the debtor to pay the time barred debt - Drawer held guilty of offence. (H.Narasimha Rao Vs Venkataram R.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 975 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) KAR LJ 238 : ILR 2006 KAR 4242 #6: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued to retiring partner - Specific plea of accused that complainant is still a partner - Evidence as to retirement from partnership not adduced - When there is failure to prove factum of retirement from partnership the only reasonable conclusion could be that there was no existing liability as on date of issuance of cheque - No interference in order of acquittal. (K.A.Prakash Rao Vs U.Indira Devi & Ors.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.P.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 518 (A.P.) #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - It is for drawer to rebut presumption - In absence of rebuttal evidence, it is to be presumed that cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Consideration - Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes - Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability - Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted with. (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Bhave & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY) #9: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act, Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability - The presumption is rebuttable - The burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused. (R.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala & Ors.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA) #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability - Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon - Burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 118(a)-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones - Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (Kamala S. Vs Vidyadharan M.J. & Anr.), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.C.) #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Denial of issuance of cheque - Held, once cheque is duly singed by accused, mere denial of issuing cheque is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act. (J.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR.) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption - Available only when three conditions are satisfied viz. (1) that the person in whose favour the presumption is drawn is the holder of the cheque; (2) that the cheque is of the nature stated in section 138 of the Act; (3) that such cheques is 'received' by the holder. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Presumption need not be rebutted only by leading defence evidence - Presumption can be rebutted even on the basis of fact elicited in the cross examination of the complainant. (M.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR.) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption - Burden to prove - If the holder of cheque has to avail of the benefit of the presumption under section 139 of the Act, the burden is on him to establish all the pre-requisites for drawing such presumption. (Kamalammal Vs C.K.Mohanan & Anr.), 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - To draw presumption under Section 139 of the act complainant has to prove execution and issue of cheque - Admission of signature in a cheque goes a long way to prove due execution - Possession of the cheque by the complainant similarly goes a long way to prove issue of the cheque. (Johnson Scaria Vs State of Kerala), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1578 (KER.) : 2007(5) AKAR 695 ; 2006(3) KERLJ 561 : 2006(4) KERLT 290 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Legally enforceable debt - When issuance of cheque is admitted, presumption shall be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for the discharge in whole or part of any debt or any other liability, unless the contrary is proved. (M.G.Brothers Automobiles Ltd. rep. by its General Manager Vs B.Masthan Reddy & Anr.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 449 (A.P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 696 (A.P.) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption under Section 139 of the Act - Rebuttal Discharge of burden - To lead evidence is not necessary to discharge the burden - Accused can rely on the broad improbabilities in the case of the prosecution, the improbabilities in the evidence of the witnesses of the prosecution, the acceptability of suggestions made to the prosecution witnesses in the course of cross examination as also defence evidence if any - All circumstances which he as an accused could have relied on to discharge his burden under S.105 of the Evidence Act can be made use of by him to discharge the burden under S.139 of the N.I. Act also. (Johnson Scaria Vs State of Kerala), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1578 (KER.) : 2007(5) AKAR 695 ; 2006(3) KERLJ 561 : 2006(4) KERLT 290 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Available only till contrary is proved by the accused - A fact is said to be proved when the court on a consideration of the matters before it believes in its existence or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought to proceed under the circumstances of the particular case on the supposition that such fact exists. (Johnson Scaria Vs State of Kerala), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 1578 (KER.) : 2007(5) AKAR 695 ; 2006(3) KERLJ 561 : 2006(4) KERLT 290 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Theory of handing over a blank signed cheque as security - Burden rests squarely and heavily on the indictee who wants to attribute to himself such an improbable and artificial conduct to claim exculpation from lability - The silence and inaction of accused on receipt of demand notice and his omission to raise the contentions now raised are vital and crucial significance when a court tries to evaluate the acceptability of the contention adopting the yardstick of a prudent man. (Aniyan Thomas Chacko Vs The Varvelil Bankers & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 262 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (KERALA) #21: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque is a promise made in writing to pay certain sum - There is a legally enforceable liability. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.Deshmukh & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 138, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge of a liability already existing under the promissory note. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139, 118-- - Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note - When presumption u/s 139 can be drawn it is superfluous and unnecessary to draw or bank on the presumption u/s 118 of the Act - As the graver presumption of existence of consideration of a specified variety, is available it is not necessary at all to go back to the presumption u/s 118(a) of the Act. (P.N.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.), 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Presumption - Rebuttal - Rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the court in support of the defence that the court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable - The standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'. (M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr.), 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 411 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.C.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S.C.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD LW (CRI.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 : 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39 #25: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Rebuttal of presumption - Onus is not as heavy as that of prosecution and may be compared with defendant in Civil Case - Rebuttal of presumption contemplated u/s 139 requires only probable defence and standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities. (Lakshmi Srinivas Savings & Chit Funds Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. Vs S.Bhojarajan), 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (MADRAS) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (MADRAS) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - `Stop payment' - Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow and the same consequences would follow where the drawer stops the payment after issue of the cheque. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.), 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.) 0767 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Dishonour of cheque - Cheque given as collateral security - Cheque was never meant to be deposited - If such a cheque is deposited and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability. (Goa Handicrafts, Rural & Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. Vs M/s.Samudra Ropes Pvt. Ltd.), 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1009 (BOMBAY) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139, 43-- - Legally enforceable debt - Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil case - Civil case not withdrawn - Held, when cheque is issued for some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet another promise i.e. withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala), 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.) 2005(3) KER. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.) 562 #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Partnership firm - Dissolution - One partner issued cheque to the other towards his liability - Presumption is that cheque was for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. (Abdul Hameed Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.), 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 194 (RAJASTHAN) #5: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Legal debt and liability - Agreement to sell - Accused making part payment and issuing cheques of balance consideration - Accused put in possession of land and given Power of Attorney to do all acts and deeds in respect of land - Sale transaction not completed - Dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds - Accused guilty of offence under S.138 - Act of complainant amounted to sale of property within meaning of S.54 of Transfer of Property act - It would be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of liability and not as security. (V.Sampath Vs Praveen Chandra V.Shah), 1999 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (MADRAS) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, 138, 139-- - Debt and liability - Payment stopped on the ground that cheques were . 139-. 1881. (The Waterbase Ltd..'Debt or liability' .) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ 838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0497 #10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow . 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (MADRAS) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 140.Under Section 139 it has to be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of debt or other liability . 138.not supported by consideration .Cheque issued .On repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards discharge of loan amount . 142-.Merely because the drawer issues a notice to the drawee or to the Bank for stoppage of the payment it will not preclude an action under Section 138 of the Act by the drawee or the holder of a cheque in due course.C.Presumption u/s 139 .This presumption can be rebutted by adducing evidence and the burden of proof is on the person who wants to rebut the presumption.) 380 : 2004(2) CIV LJ 656 : 2003(117) COM CAS 781 : 2004(2) COM LJ SC 11 : 2003(57) COR LA 244 : 2004 CRI LR(SC&MP) SC 248 : 2004(1) CRIMES 81 (SC) : 2005(4) CUR CRI R 403 : 2004(2) GCD SC 1084 : 2004(13) IND LD 1 : JT 2003(9) SC 451 : 2004(1) KLJ 540 : 2004(3) KLT 90 : 2004(2) MAD LJ(CRI. 1881. 141.K.Dadia Vs State of Maharasthra).As such it is difficult to come to a positive conclusion that amount paid subsequent to the date of issuance of the cheque pertains to the discharge of the cheque amount only. 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S.D-1 to D-6 .Certain payments made after dishonour of cheque . 139-. (Shailesh Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.C.) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited Vs M.C... (Goa Plast (P) Ltd.). (Ramesh Ratilal Tanna Vs Gautam Jayantilal Nagarwala). 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0433 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0133 : 1998 CRL.). 1881.) 309 : 2004(48) ALL CRI C 212 : 2004(1) ALL CRI LR 506 : 2004(13) ALL IND CAS 741 : 2004(1) ALT(CRI. Vs Karuthuru Ravendra). 4361 : 1999 (5) BCR 0124 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Witness not examined to prove Ex.) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (KERALA) #7: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.To rebut the presumption it is not necessary to lead evidence as the accused can rebut the presumption on the basis of the complaint as well as evidence led by the complainant himself. (K.) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S. (Mahendra A.It is for accused to rebut presumption contained in S. 139-. 139-. 1881. 1881.Is rebuttable presumption . 139-.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 676 (A.Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors..) : AIR 2004 SC 408 : 2004 CRI LJ 664 : 2004(1) REC CRI R 179 : 2004(2) SCC 235 : 2003 AIR SCW 6803 : 2004 CLC 51 : 2004(1) ALD(CRI.Held. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 10 (BOMBAY) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.) 26 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 348 : 2004(27) OCR 476 : 2004(1) PAT LJR 248 : 2004(1) RAJ CRI C 131 : 2003(7) SLT 247 : 2003(9) SCALE 791 : 2004 SCC(CRI.Loan taken of Rs.Burden of proof is on accused that cheques were not supported by consideration.Amount not paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding . 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (A. (The Waterbase Ltd.Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque.) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . there was no existing liability .P. 1881. 139-. 1881. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI. 139-.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act..) 499 : 2004(1) SHIM LC 247 : 2003(8) SUPREME 490 : 2004(1) UJ(SC) 525 : 2004(1) TNLR 102 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988.P..30 lakhs and promissory note executed .Cheque dishonoured .Court has to draw a presumption that the drawer of the cheque has issued the same for legally enforceable debt or liability. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (A. 139-. 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (KERALA) : 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 65 (KERALA) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Anitha). L.There is presumption in favour of holder of a cheque that the cheque is regarding discharge of the liability .George Vs Muhammed Master).I. 1999 (SUPPL. Vs Karuthuru Ravendra).It is to be presumed that it is issued in discharge of a debt or other liability . unless the contrary is proved.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 676 (A.P. (K.Cheque issued on specific understanding that the same can be presented and encashed if the entire loan amount not otherwise paid before the date of cheque .P.`Legally enforceable debt' .) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) SC 135 : 2004(1) BLJR 471 : 2004(1) BANK CLR 733 : 2004(1) BANKMANN 1 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI. 1881.. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza). 1881.) BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6) BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI. cheque was issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (ALLAHABAD) #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 660 : 2004(2) BOM LR 663 : 2004 CAL CRI LR 113 : 2004(1) CHAND LR(CIV&CRI. 139.Applicant can rebut the presumption by producing evidence. (Thekkan & Co.Mal Reddy). 138..) 0351 #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.J. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM. Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. 118-.M. 139-.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 635 (S. 1999 (SUPPL.Presumption is rebuttable ..139.Cheque . (K. Promissory Notes and other like instruments' .. CASES 0664 : ILR 1992 (2) KERALA 0833 #20: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.) 0767 #25: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.. (George Vs Muhammed). 139-. 138-.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.Presumption .K.) 0014 : 2001 DCR 47 (SC) : 2001 CRI.E.138.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude . Vs Narender & Ors. (K.Constitution of India. 1881.Held.Ltd.Shashidaran).Beena Vs Muniyappan).118 and 139 are only permissible presumptions in law from different perspectives . 142-.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 704 (S. 139. Vs OK Play India Ltd.In view of the express provision of S. (Smt.Adinarayana). (Arvind Manekalal Tailor Vs State of Gujarat)..C. LJ 4745 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (P&H) : 1999 . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (S. Union List.Words `Banking. 139. India Pvt. for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved.).There is presumption under S. 139-.. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.Presumption is there that cheque was issued towards `legally enforceable debt' ..) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (Chand Rattan Newar Vs Shayam Rattan Newar). 118-.C.139 that unless the contrary is proved the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in S. 138. Entries 45.Legally enforceable debt .).G. 141.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 139. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 514 (KARNATAKA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 723 (KARNATAKA) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.`Debt or other liability' . 139-.Occurring in Entries Nos. 139.Negotiable Instruments Act.G.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0348 : 1999(1) SCC 113 : 2000(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 104 #24: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. a presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque.) 0396 : 1999 (97) COMP. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co.139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability .Presumption created by Ss. 1881.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.118 creates a presumption that drawer of a cheque is a debtor in respect of the amount of the cheque and drawee is the creditor . 139.Issuance of cheque and signatures on cheque admitted . Bills of Exchange.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 2001(8) SCC 458 : 2001(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 701 : 2001 CRI LJ 1781 : AIR 2001 SC 2895 : 2005 SCC (CRI.Accused has to prove by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. (Maruti Udyog Ltd. 46 .).Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that there was no legal liability to pay .S.Ramachandra Gupta & Anr.). this presumption is rebuttable for which accused had to produce rebuttable evidence .S.Drawer has opportunity to rebut the presumption during trial.2001 (SUPP. 139-.`Debt or other liability' .Mere explanation is not sufficient Accused must give probable or acceptable defence to rebut the presumption. 140. 1881.Presumption is that it was issued towards discharge of debt or liability . 139.N. 138.'Debt or liability' .The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption.Usha Suresh Vs R.S..Presumption is to be drawn that cheque was issued towards discharge of antecedent liability and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by adducing evidence to establish that he did not issue the cheque towards discharge of any antecedent liability. 1881.Both presumptions are rebuttable.Signature on the cheque admitted .139 creates a corresponding presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.C. Seventh Schedule..Once a cheque is issued by the drawer presumption u/s 139 in favour of holder follows . (Dr. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 588 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0643 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.Legal liability to pay . 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (GUJARAT) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881.Onus is on accused ..) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears .Cheque .V.C.) ISJ (BANKING) 0138 #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mayuri .C.138 for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. Cheques.Denial by accused is not sufficient to shift the burden on complainant .Issuing of process is an interim order and not a judgment . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (KARNATAKA) #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 621 (S. (DSA Engineers (Bombay) & Ors.However. 138-. Vs Dr. Vs M/s U. of the nature referred to in S..) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI. & Anr. 1881..) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL. 1881. 138-. 1881. Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss. 1881.Provision gives rise to presumption of fact that the cheque was given in discharge of a debt or liability legally recoverable.No ground to quash the process . 138.Pulse Mills & Ors.Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted.J. 1881.`Holder' .) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Presumption in favour of holder of cheque . 000/. 1881.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L. (Ganesh Sukhlal Joshi Vs M..138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of ListI (Union List. 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY) #10: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.B.There is presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that he received the cheque for discharge.) (D.B.Bhoosanrao Vs Purushothamdas Pantani). 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (BOMBAY) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139-.P..Legally enforceable liability .Not applicable to a holder of cheque without consideration.) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139-. 138. 138. 1881.Failure to prove the case to attract the provisions of S.Held. Vs Union of India & Ors. 142-..Mohan Krishna & Ors. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act..Dishonour of cheque . (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes). Section 138. 118-. (Kamala S.Ltd.A. 1881..) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.139 of the Act. (Goa Plast Pvt.P. 1881.Rebuttable presumption .) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. Section 138.P.Initial burden lies on complaint to show that cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt or other liability .1.Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration .138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions .) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Trial Court should have afforded an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence.There is no question to rebut the presumption under S.Accused alleging misuse of . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (A.) (B.Mohan Krishna & Ors. 139-. 139-. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL. 139..Accused on appearance sought dismissal of complaint on ground that cheque had not been issued against existing liability . 139.Dishonour of cheque . (B. (Binod Sarawgi Vs State of Bihar).138 ..P.).Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones .It operates only in favour of payee and holder in due course. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .Mohan Krishna & Ors. 139. L.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 of the Act.J. 25.J..Holder of cheque-There is a presumption that the cheque received is for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability and the accused is required to dislodge this presumption.This question is a matter of evidence .Not intended to cover all kinds of holders . Vs Union of India & Ors. 139.Then only burden shifts to the drawer of the cheque to rebut that presumption.Matters covered by S. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza). 139-.. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.J.P.) (D. 1881.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL. 140. 1881. (Kamboj Gram Udyog Samiti Vs Dhillon Bricks Works).) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #9: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. in whole or in part of any debt or other liability unless contrary is proved.C. L.Consideration . (A.) (D.Complainant is bound to discharge the initial burden cast upon him that the cheque was given by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable liability Complainant failing to prove satisfactorily that he has sufficient capacity to lend the amount of Rs. 118(a)-. (B. 1881.P.J. Vs Union of India & Ors. 1881. Vs Union of India & Ors.). 1881. 139. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL. 141.P. Vs Union of India & Ors. Vs Vidyadharan M.) (D. accused cannot be punished under S.Mohan Krishna & Ors. (B. 118(a)-. 139-. 1881.Bharti). 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.B.by way of cheque and his failure to prove that amount was actually drawn by the accused . 139-. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A. 138. 1881.). 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 444 (PATNA) : 1999 (2) CIVIL LJ 0031 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0181 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.). 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.P. Section 138. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.Dishonour of cheque .). & Anr. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.. 138.B.. ).S. Section 139.).S. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.139 creates a corresponding presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque . 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 621 (S.Ltd.Presumption is that it was issued towards discharge of debt or liability . (Goa Plast Pvt.C..C. 118-. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .139 of the Act.138. Section 139.Presumption Rebuttal . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #6: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S.Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note . of the nature referred to in S.Accused has to prove by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability.Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.R.) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL. Section 139.Beena Vs Muniyappan).When presumption u/s 139 can be drawn it is superfluous and unnecessary to draw or bank on the presumption u/s 118 of the Act .It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence .) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0348 : 1999(1) SCC 113 : 2000(1) ALL INDIA CRI LR 104 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.As the graver presumption of existence of consideration of a specified variety. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (S. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.S.Failure to prove the case to attract the provisions of S.If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration .) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.Legal liability to pay . 138.The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption.C.118 and 139 are only permissible presumptions in law from different perspectives .N.Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that there was no legal liability to pay ..Presumption is rebuttable .Issuing of process is an interim order and not a judgment . 1881. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER. 139. 1881.N.Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.Dishonour of cheque .Denial by accused is not sufficient to shift the burden on complainant .Both presumptions are rebuttable. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears . (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram). Vs OK Play India Ltd. 139.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.C.C.Nagappa Vs Y. for the discharge of any debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved. Section 139.cheque .Muralidhar).). 1881.C.139 of the Act.).) 0767 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 118-. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (GUJARAT) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held. Section 139.139. Section 138.118 creates a presumption that drawer of a cheque is a debtor in respect of the amount of the cheque and drawee is the creditor . 118-. opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal. 1996(2) CLVLL COURT CASES 551 (BOMBAY) #2: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. a presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque.Onus is on accused . (Maruti Udyog Ltd. 1881. 1881.Consideration ..Presumption created by Ss.Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability .) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 635 (S.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Narender & Ors.Cheque .) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S. 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions.No ground to quash the process .In view of the express provision of S. 1881. 138-.138 There is no question to rebut the presumption under S. 118(a)-.). 1881.C. (P. 138-.C. 138-. (K.. Section 138.139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability ..The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities . Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza). (T. (Arvind Manekalal Tailor Vs State of Gujarat)..Presumption . 1881. 1881. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 2001(8) SCC 458 : 2001(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 701 : 2001 CRI LJ 1781 : AIR 2001 SC 2895 : . Section 139..) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 704 (S.. (K. 118-.Cheque .Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant ..) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S. Section 139. is available it is not necessary at all to go back to the presumption u/s 118(a) of the Act.Ltd.Presumption available u/ss 138.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.`Debt or other liability' .Signature on the cheque admitted . 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.). 1881. Section 138.) 42 : 2000(1) PLR 113 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 1999(4) CRIMES 212 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 1999(3) KLT 440 : 2000(1) MAH LJ 193 : 1999(3) CTC 358 : 2000(2) KLJ 58 : 1999(4) ALL MR 452 : 2000(1) LW (CRI.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability .Pleading as to requirement of S.Specific plea in complaint that Vice-President negotiated with the complainant in respect of the transaction and held out assurances that liability would be cleared . Court has to consider original transaction for arriving at a safe conclusion.If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company.) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. 141-. 1881. when execution of cheque itself is disputed and not proved. Section 138.). 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER. (Gopan Vs Tonny Varghese).) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.It will be decided during trial if Vice-President has acted on behalf of company i. 118-.Held.Consisting of two partners .).Dishonour of cheque . it is sufficient when it is pleaded that the firm has two partners who are also arrayed as accused persons.Court is not bound to adjudicate on the liability under the cheque in dispute .Complaint against firm and both the partners . Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors. LJ 4745 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque signed by both the partners . 138.) 0014 : 2001 DCR 47 (SC) : 2001 CRI. (Devender Raina Vs State & Anr.Company .Resigned before cheques were issued . 138.).. 118-. 1881.Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge of a liability already existing under the promissory note. the effect of delayed presentation before the Registrar of companies can only be decided after parties lead evidence .Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.Directors .Prosecution of Company.The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. when complaint is in relation to a firm of which there are only two partners.) 299 : 2000(1) OLR (SC) 1 : JT 1999(7) SC 558 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385 (S. Section 139.However.C. Section 138. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 729 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1077 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2022 (KER. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors. Section 138.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.C.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 118-.C. (M/s...) : 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.Dishonour of cheque .No pleading in complaint that at the time the offence was committed both the partners were incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of business of the firm .) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.2005 SCC (CRI.Dishonour of cheque . (Green Sea Marine & Ors.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. accused No.Presumption under Sections 118 and 139 can be invoked when cheque is issued for discharge of a liability already existing under the promissory note.) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 139. 1881. 141-. 138-.). Section 139. 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S. 1881. it is for the Directors to establish it at the trial. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd.C.. Section 138.C.Held.A.Director .32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies much after the cheques were issued . (P.Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note ..Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-..141 of the Act . From No. complaint has to be read as a whole .1 or not Petition to quash proceedings dismissed.Anty & Anr.Company .) : 2007 CRILJ 2776 : 2007(5) AKAR 804 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 874 : 2006(3) KERLJ 811 : 2006(4) KERLT 779 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 451 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Gopinathan Vs Sivadasan & Anr.Signature on the cheque admitted .) : 1999(7) SCC 510 : 1999(4) REC CRI R 309 : (1999) 17 OCR (SC) 555 : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0688 : AIR 1999 SC 3762 : 1999 AIR SCW 3809 : 1999 CRI LJ 4606 : 2000(1) ALT (CRL. Chairman and Vice-President . 141-.A person in the commercial world having a transaction with a company is entitled to presume that the Directors of the company are in charge of the affairs of the company .. 1881. 141-.). 1881.C.Held.C. 1881.Power of Attorney holder can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of his Principal.N. Vs V.Partnership firm .Company ..).Partnership firm ..S.If the substance of the allegations made in . 138.. (K.Petition by Vice-President for quashing of proceedings .Order quashing proceedings set aside. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 642 (KERALA) #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.However. Section 139.e.Cheque .) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.). (P.N.Dishonour of cheque . Section 138.Cheque issued to discharge liability under a promissory note . ) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S. 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 792 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (DELHI) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint against accused 2 to 7 quashed.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 192 (S.) : 2008(2) KLT 983 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 2357 #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.Directors .However.Dishonour of Cheque . (Anoop Jhalani Vs State & Anr. 1881.P.. (Dev Sareen Vs DCM Financial Ltd. 141-.. Section 138.A company can be proceeded against in a criminal proceeding even where imposition of substantive sentence is provided for.Rajda Vs State of Maharashtra).C.Complaint is maintainable so long as the identification of human individual behind the curtain is possible without any mistake.). 141-.C. 1881. 141-..) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S. (R. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 084 (DELHI) #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..C.Dishonour of cheque .). that complainant had pleaded in his complaint that petitioners were directors of the company and were in-charge and responsible for the affairs and business of the Company . Section 138.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no averment they were incharge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the company. 1881.Resignation of the petitioner from the company is a defence of the petitioner which he can take before the trial Court .C.No ground to quash the complaint.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.P. 141-.C.A creditor is not supposed to know are the sleeping directors or actively involved directors in the management of the company .Summoning order concerning petitioner quashed . trial Court will be at liberty to exercise its power u/s 319 Cr.It is sufficient compliance within the meaning of S. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s.Held. (Subhash Sahni Vs M/s.Proprietorship firm .Dishonour of cheque .Being Director of the company a Director is not jointly and severally liable for the acts of the company .) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Verma & Ors.Accused summoned being Directors of Company .If any Director of the company claims that he was not the person looking after the affairs of the company this fact has to be proved by him by leading cogent evidence before the trial Court .C.Petition to quash summoning order dismissed.).Dishonour of cheque ..Anty & Anr. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 658 (DELHI) #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138.Dishonour of cheque .141 of the Act then complaint has to proceed and is required to be tried with In construing a complaint.Company .). 141-. 1881.Verma & Ors.Directors . 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S.K.Dishonour of cheque .Composite notice of more than one cheque is valid.No averment in complaint that at the time when offence was committed accused No.) .Dishonour of cheque .C.the complaint fulfills the requirements of S.An allegation in the complaint that the named accused are Directors of the company itself would usher in the element of their acting for and on behalf of the company and of their being in charge of the company. 1881.Company . Section 138. Section 138.141 of the Act .C. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #7: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs V. (Paresh P.Notice . 1881. Section 138. Ltd.). (Bharat Poonam Chand Shah Vs Dominors Printech India Pvt. (Natesha Securities Vs Vinayak Waman Mokashi & Anr.Difference of opinion as to whether signatory only can be prosecuted without prosecution of company . Section 138.Additional accused Averments unspecific and general . 141-..Dishonour of cheque . (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (H.).L.). 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #14: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.).. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S. Ltd. Joint Managing Director and three Directors . (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd.A. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 350 (DELHI) #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (S. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors. (Green Sea Marine & Ors.Company . Section 138. 1881..C.Company .Directors .) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.Company .C. 141-.Prosecution of signatory without prosecution of company itself .In view of difference of opinion matter referred to larger bench. Ltd. 141-.. 141-. Section 138.C.) #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.).Sleeping director .No particular role assigned to petitioner . Section 138.Company .Complaint filed against proprietorship firm through its proprietor .) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . Vs J.Complaint against Chairman. 1881.Auro Spinning Mills).Defence of accused that they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company . 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 413 (S. 1881.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.Liability of company where substantive sentence is provided . to summon an additional accused at a later stage.2 to 7 were incharge and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company .Allegation that they were officers and responsible for the affairs of the company . 1881. 141-. a hypertechnical approach is not to be adopted.Dishonour of cheque .. (Smt.Dishonour of cheque . it cannot be said that notice is not valid. 141-.Petition to quash proceedings dismissed. 141-.303(2) of the Companies Act This document is not a public document in terms of S. 1881. wife is not liable .Walvekar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors.).The fact whether petitioner resigned from the company before issuance of cheque still remains in the category of disputed fact which is required to be proved or disproved at the stage of trial .Bandeep Kaur Vs S. Goa). & Anr. Section 138. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U. 1881. (DCM Financial Services Ltd.5 & 6 were incharge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of business of company at the time.Company .Held.Sareen & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .. 1881. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (CALCUTTA) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque ..Held. Karnataka & Ors. 141-. 1881.Ltd.141 of the Act provides for a constructive liability . Section 138. Section 138.Such a document falls within the category of 'shall presume' . Vs Sachima Agro Industries Pvt.Company . 141-. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr.Company .Company .Petitioner resigned as Director of company ..Bhansali Vs The State & Anr. Ltd. (Sona P.P. Section 138.74 Evidence Act .Dishonour of cheque .).Also no specific overt act attributed to petitioner regarding his involvement in the commission of alleged offence .Mere fact that at one point of time some role has been played by the accused may not by itself be sufficient to attract the constructive liability under Section 141 of the Act.76 of the Act does not fall within the category of 'Conclusive Proof' as defined u/s 4 Evidence Act . (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr.).Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company .Dishonour of Cheque .Proper course was to allow the proceeding to go on to come to its logical conclusion.27(3) of State Financial Corporations Act Held. 141. 141-. that it is a document which the company is required to furnish before the Registrar of Companies in terms of S. Ltd. Section 138. Section 138.).Dishonour of cheque . Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Section 138. 142-.No categorical averment either in complaint or in the statement on oath that accused Nos.N.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 266 (S.C. 141-.) 152 : .'Accused are Directors and Executive of the Company' .Held. should receive strict construction .Specific averments in the complaint petition so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act are imperative . Section 138.)..Directors . charged with administrative work and is a person with senior managerial responsibility in the business .No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque . 141-.Dishonour of cheque .).Company . 1881.32 . 1881. that second proviso to S. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. Section 138.C.Cheque dishonoured and in lieu thereof second cheque issued ..Meaning ..S.Director . (Budhmal Bhansali @ B. 1881.Challenged on the ground that it is not averred in the complaint as to in what manner accused was responsible for the conduct of business of the company . Vs J. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.The purpose would be served if the averments.Dishonour of cheque .Such document even issued by public authority in terms of S. the offence was committed .Company .Cheque issued by Company Summoning order . & Ors. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr.C.It requires strict compliance of the provision . by whatever words used. averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.Avneet Singh).It is not necessary that in the complaint the words u/s 141 of the Act should be verbatim quoted . Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt.Prosecution evidence already closed and case fixed for defence evidence .) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 303 (S.Proviso ..Petitioner placed on record photocopy of Form No. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 573 (CALCUTTA) #21: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant . 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 446 (S.One of the accused was a nominee director and enjoyed the immunity provided by S.). makes it clear that the person was in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.) : 2008(3) RCR(CRL. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.The statute being a penal one. (Skyline Aquatech Exports Ltd.141 of the Act was only clarificatory in nature and clarified what S.27 of SFCA provided Accused Nos.A legal fiction has been created thereby . he is an officer with executive powers. 141-.Summoning order quashed.Dishonour of cheque .#17: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. & Anr.No fault can be found in the complaint..Proceedings against wife quashed. Ltd. 1881.Joint account of husband and wife Husband issued cheque drawn to joint bank account to discharge his liability .141 of the Act .Directors . 1881.5 & 6 discharged. & Anr.Wife neither having dealings with the petitioner nor drawer of cheque . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (BOMBAY) #20: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.When Director is also executive.Cheque number of second cheque not mentioned in notice . one way or the other Court declined to interfere in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (P&H) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Notice .Held. 1881.. 138.Complaint by Managing Partner of a firm in respect of a cheque issued in favour of firm is maintianble.. 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #2: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Process issued against accused quashed.Dishonour of cheque .Account attached by Income Tax Department . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (GAUHATI) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . (Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Vs Brahm Prakash Sharma).Company .Dishonour of cheque .It was he who had taken responsibility to accept loan.3 & 4 in respect of alleged offence .Directors .).Statutory notice to every person.Company .To fasten liability on a Director it has to be proved that the person named as the Director was responsible to the company and was in charge of the affairs of the Company pertaining to the conduct of the business of the company. 1881. 141-.Offence u/s 138 of the Act is not made out .).Issuance of Bankers cheque being the result of an oversight or negligence . 138. 141-..P.). Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.1 & 2 were responsible for conduct of business of the company at relevant time and nothing to show that accused Nos. (B.. 138.2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3) RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Raman & Ors. 1881. 1881. 138. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 412 (DELHI) #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Mere fact that proceedings have been quashed against the accused will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against him has been made out in the additional evidence led before it.Company . Vs M/s Vascon).Company .1 and 2 conspired with or abetted accused Nos.Sleeping Director . 138.Stand of petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company .Dishonour of cheque .Managing Director negotiated loan Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) .Banker's cheque .S. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.Company . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY) #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.).Dishonour of cheque . 141-.Cheque dishonoured thereafter Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned . 1881.Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . consent or supervision for the reasons by virtue of the designation of his office .Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (P&H) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Director's responsibility Complainant has to specifically show as to how and in what manner the accused alleged director was responsible for the conduct of business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its function .Partnership firm .. (Nasar Vs State of Kerala).Dishonour of cheque .Managing Director and Director Liability .Company .Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender . (M/s.It is not so in case of Directors . 141-.Dishonour of cheque .Company . (Ashok Newatia Vs State & Anr. 141-.Sandhu Vs M/s.Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who was incharge of. 141-. (T. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 66 (DELHI) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint quashed. 138.). 141-. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (KERALA) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd. 1881.Allegations bald and general in nature .Notice . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Not a ground to quash proceedings as it is a matter of evidence.On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered . 138. 1881. & Ors.. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 442 (DELHI) #8: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque ..Company . who is sought to be prosecuted. 1881.R. 141-. (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr. (Standard Chartered Bank & Anr.. and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business .Proceedings against accused Nos. 141-.Dishonour of cheque . (Sarla Jain Vs Central Bank of India).1 & 2 quashed.Proceedings quashed against petitioners. 138. 141-..Nothing in complaint to show that accused Nos.. Vs State & Anr. including Director.). 1881.In case of Managing Director a presumption arises that the offence is committed with his active knowledge.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Proceedings against petitioner quashed.Patiala Auto Enterprises etc.Prosecution of authorised signatory Notice not given to company .Dishonour of cheque .Gupta & Anr.Managing Director resigned . (J.. is mandatory.). 1881. Complaint qua petitioner quashed.Company .) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI.)..M. 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 393 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 59 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 755 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act..If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company. every person.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited). (N.There should be an assertion in the complaint that the named accused are directors of the company and that they are incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.141 of the Act .C.C. 141-. 1881. the person accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company . 138. 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. including Director.Complaint against petitioner quashed.Summoning order qua petitioner quashed.) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . (B. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.J.Notice .Snehalatha Vs M/s Victory Leathers). (P. (N. 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Directors . (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company .Company . 138.C.There should be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by a Director in the transaction .) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S. (Hazi Abadullah & Ors. 138. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.S.There must be a specific allegations and averments regarding the role played by such a partner . (Birthe Foster Vs State & Anr.). 1881. 138. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 .Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited). 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.Company . 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 .Petitioner may have handled transactions for and on behalf of the company in India . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 50 (MADRAS) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. it is for the directors to establish it at the trial. 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL. 138.C.In absence of any averment or specific evidence the complaint is not entertainable.).J. 138. shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company.Company . Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.Statutory notice to every person.There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company Description should be clear . 138.Director .C.Petitioner not incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company .When the offender is a company.).) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.Dishonour of cheque .).J. 141-. secretary or other officer of the company .Agent .. 141-.Petitioner neither a director. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #20: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. .Liability . 1881.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI.Partner .C. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 075 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (DELHI) #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 . who is sought to be prosecuted is mandatory. 1881. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.No such averment in complaint . 138.The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed.Director .Dishonour of cheque .Company ..It is necessary to specifically aver in complaint that at the time offence was committed.Notice to company .Partnership firm .)..Company . 141-. 138.Directors .#12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Liability . 141-. manager.C.Company .Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited). (N.C.Bald allegation that such a partner took active part in the day-to-day business affairs of the firm without any material in support thereof is not sufficient . 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.A person is entitled to presume that directors of the company are incharge of the affairs of the company .) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S. 141-.Dishonour of cheque . 141-. 141-.Company . 1881. 1881.Pleading . Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S.Without such an averment in complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied . 141-.Raman & Ors.This does not bring petitioner within the purview of S. (N..Pharmaceutical Ltd.Director ...Evidence is not required to be pleaded but there has to be a basic averment as to how one is involved in the alleged crime.C.Director or person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of company cannot be prosecuted when notice is not issued to him .. 138. who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.K. (S.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors. 141-.. C.Dishonour of cheque . 141-.) : 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 483 (S. 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.Dishonour of cheque . 141-. 1881.) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR 228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190 #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881..Director .This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of the Act .) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd. 1881. 141-..Proprietorship concern . (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes). requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to . 141-.).) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Complaint against company and its Directors . Vs R.2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.Company .K. 1881. 1881. the person accused was in charge of.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable . 141-.141 cannot be said to be satisfied. and responsible for the conduct of business of the company . 138.C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.Company .Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. (2005(2) Apex Court Judgments 544 (S.M.Dishonour of cheque .Channabasavardhya).Dishonour of cheque .B. 1881.. 138. 1881.C.Dishonour of Cheque .) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. the person accused was in charge of.Persons sought to be made criminally liable .Company . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show that respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed proceedings against respondents .Dishonour of cheque .).Without this averment in complaint. (N. and responsible for the conduct of business of the company .) : 2005(4) Criminal Court Cases 502 (S.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.Dishonour of cheque .C. 138.) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (N.Only such person is liable if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S.C.. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.Complaint must contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview of S.C.141 of the Act so as to make some persons other than company vicariously liable therefor.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.Director . 138.K. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.Director .) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S.C. (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. 1881.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.No ground made out to quash the proceedings. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S. 141-..S.C.Pharmaceutical Ltd..Without there being such a averment in the complaint requirement of S.Vicarious liability . (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes).)..There should be a clear averment in the complaint that at the time the offence was committed.Company .Complaint against firm and its five partners Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm . 138.C.).C.Allegations in complaint that respondent accused Nos. 141-.C. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand).Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for conduct of 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. (S. 141-.Vicarious liability Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for an offence committed by the Company that he was in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business .Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.Company .An employee of a proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the Act.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S.Company .C. 138.C.C.2 to 12 were Directors/persons responsible for carrying out business of company and the liability of accused persons was joint and several ..C.Company .C.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.. 138.S.C.Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed.Dishonour of cheque .C. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors. 1881.Dishonour of Cheque . 141-.) Followed).) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.No reason to interfere.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S. 138. Company .Plea to quash complaint on the ground that there was no proper averment and notice of offence was framed mechanically .Secretary signatory of cheque .No evidence except affidavit of complainant .Company .Held. 138.Director nominated by IDBI as financial assistance extended to company . 141-. 138.Petitioner not a signatory of the cheque .C. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (S.Part time Director . (G.Petitioner did not sign the cheque . (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand).Saluja Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 769 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 224 (P&H) : 2007(4) AKAR 554 : 2007(50) ALLINDCAS 322 #12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Saxena Vs State).Separate notice to Managing Director who signed the cheque on behalf of company is not required .Partnership firm .Dishonour of cheque . (Shekhar Suman Vs Narender & Ors.Notice given to company . 1881. of company and A3 to A6 its Directors .Sleeping partner .No averment in complaint as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of business of Company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning . (Rajkumar Malhotra Vs Bhanwarlal).Prima facie evidence shows that petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence and he cannot be held vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (DELHI) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Signatory of cheque if ceases to be Secretary on the date when offence was committed cannot be prosecuted u/s 138 of the Act Crucial date for determining date when offence was committed is when cheque is returned by the bank unpaid .Society Ltd.Director nominated by a Central Government or State Government or a Financial Corporation owned or controlled by Central Government or State Government cannot be prosecuted for dishonour of cheque . its Chairman. 141-. which were dishonoured .Dishonour of cheque .Co-operative Society .Proceedings against Director quashed. 138. 1881..Company .C. .) : JT 2007(2) SC 233 : 2007(2) SCALE 36 : 2007 AIR SCW 656 : 2007(4) MAH LJ 421 : 2007(3) SCC 693 : 2007(58) ACC 1090 : 2007(52) AIC 235 : AIR 2007 SC 912 : 2007 CLC 163 #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Petitioner denied that he was ever Chairman of Company .Summoning of petitioner quashed. 141-. (Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. 141-.. (O.. 141-.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 624 (KERALA) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER.Dishonour of cheque .).Dishonour of cheque ..Liable for prosecution despite non prosecution of the Director or Directors responsible for the management of the affairs of the company or incharge of its affairs. 138. .C.K...Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr.Company and its Directors approached complainant for grant of loan .Company . 1881.).Mohandas Vs M/s Jayasamudri Trading Co. 1881. (K.be satisfied.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 842 (S. 141-. (Kairali Marketing & Processing Co-op. 1881.I. Managing Director and Director .If there are requisite averments in complaint under Ss.Proceedings against petitioner quashed. 1881. 138. Society Ltd.Nominated Director .Company ..IDBI a financial institution controlled by Central Govt. Vs Pullengadi Service Co-op.Director .138 and 141 of N. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #13: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.S.No averment in complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day business of the company or was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence .A person can be prosecuted for offence u/s 138 only if at the time the offence was committed he was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company.As per loan agreement Company issued three cheques. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Authentic and unimpeachable documents placed on record to show that petitioner was not Chairman of Company and inspite of opportunity granted complainant did not controvert the same .To attract culpable liability a partner must be in charge of and responsible to the firm to the conduct of its business.C.A2 M. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 539 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 152 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 92 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 553 #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (V.) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Proceedings against Managing Director cannot be quashed.). 138. 141-.P.).Dishonour of cheque . Act then matter has to proceed for expeditious disposal and defence is to be raised before concerned Magistrate and is not to be considered in a petition under S.P.Company . 1881.Prosecution of Company. & Anr..). 141-. 1881. (Balaji . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 822 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 262 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 592 : 2006(132) DLT 498 #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-.482 Cr. 138.Proceedings against petitioner quashed.No interference called for.Not liable Mere fact that a partner has financial stake in the business of the firm is not sufficient in itself to attract culpable liability under Section 141(1) of the Act . 1881. 138.) : 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 243 (S. even if allegations in complaint are taken to be correct in its entirety the same do not disclose any offence against the Director ..)..D.K.Company . Dishonour of cheque ..Quashing of complaint Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that petitioner ceased to be Director of company with effect from 18. 141-. 138.482 Cr. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Directors of Company cannot be prosecuted in absence of their name appearing in the array of accused in the complaint.Complaint not disclosing that at the time the offence was committed petitioner was in any way incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm .Dishonour of cheque .Company . (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala). 1881.Where Court is required to issue summons which .Partner .C. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 431 (KERALA) #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mohandas Vs Jayasamudri Trading Co. (Atul Kohli & Anr. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 531 (DELHI) : 2005(124) DLT 353 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-.Dishonour of cheque issued by Company .Radhakrishnan Vs A.. 142-.Company . then it is not 'a complaint of facts which constitute the offence'.Criminal liability is not confined to the signatory of the cheque alone but extends to non signatories also provided other conditions in that regard are satisfied.C. 138. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Statutory requirements . 141-. 1881.) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #16: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.For prosecution of Chairman.Where the facts necessary for proceeding against an accused are not averred..It is not essential to prosecute the firm/company also before the person in charge is sought to be prosecuted. Chairman. 1881.It is not required that each and every Director of company should be served with notice. (N.Cheque dishonoured issued by company .2003 .Thomas & Anr.Prosecution of company and directors .Omnibus allegation that Chairman and Directors of the company were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and all of them connived in the offence is not sufficient for their prosecution. 138.Complaint against partners . 1881.). 1881.Managing partner issued cheque to discharge liability of firm Cheque dishonoured .Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 676 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452 (P&H) #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Notice ..2003 .P.Prosecution of Company. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.Notice to company . 141-.Firm .). 138.Company . 138.Offence by company .Complaint quashed against petitioner.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .). 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 380 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER.Secretary is liable u/s 138 of the Act even if he ceases to be its Secretary.Registered society . (Suman Madanlal Bora Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs State). Vice Chairman and other Directors of the Company complaint must show how they are responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business of the company and how they were actually involved in the conduct of the business of the company relating to the transaction in question or how and on what basis it can be said that it was with the active connivance of these accused that the offence was committed by the company .Ltd. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (DELHI) #24: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Everest Advertising Pvt.Cheque bounced on 25. 138.).P. 1881.. 1881.Not liable if he merely derives profits from the company . 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 356 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 324 (NOC) : AIR 2006 BOM 921 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 539 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR HCR 648 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 434 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.Disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in summary proceedings under S.Firm .. 141-. 1881. 138.)..6.Cheque dishonoured . 141-.Cheque issued by Secretary for and on behalf of society .5.). 141-. 141-.).Dishonour of cheque . 138.. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala). (Rajesh Bagga Vs State). 138.) 707 : 2006(1) BOM CRI R 243 : 2006(4) MAH LJ 369 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.. 141-. 1881. 141. Vs State of Punjab & Anr. Vice Chairman and other Directors of the company . 1881.Complainant seriously disputed the genuineness of resolution passed by Board of Directors .) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 1881.To make a partner liable he must be in charge of and responsible to the firm in the conduct of business of firm. 141-. (Madan Aggarwal Vs State & Anr. 138. punishable u/s 138 of the Act.Person incharge and responsible to the company . 141-. 141-. Vs Bhanwarlal).President issued cheque from his personal account to discharge a debt or liability of society .P.If for some reasons Company cannot be prosecuted then other persons cannot on that score escape from penal liability. 141-. 141-.M. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A. Court should insist strict compliance of the statutory requirements.Complaint against Company.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.K.It can be varied or recalled if accused is able to show that no offence is made out from the complaint.Held. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.. 1881.Company .) 500 : 2006(1) RCR(CRIMINAL) 500 : 2006(1) JCC (NI) 62 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Cheque drawn from personal account of President of society .Chandrasekhar & Anr. and not on behalf of the society .) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. (K.Quashing .A Director not incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the Company is not liable for the offence whereas a person not holding any office but incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time is liable for the offence. 141-. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 100 (KARNATAKA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 434 (KARNATAKA) : 2005 CRI LJ 1120 : 2005 AIR KANT HCR 298 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 149 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 867 : 2005(3) ALL MR 15 : 2005(3) BANK CLR 79 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 533 : 2005 BANK J 580 : 2005(2) CIV LJ 861 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 144 : 2005(2) KANT LJ 124 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C.C. 141-. Society or its Secretary not liable for offence u/s 138 of the Act on dishonour of such a cheque.Dishonour of cheque . 2003(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 445 (RAJASTHAN) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S. (Pramod Vs C.It is an interim order .) 412 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 210 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI.Pharmaceuticals Ltd..Company .C.) 500 : 2006(1) RCR(CRIMINAL) 500 : 2006(1) JCC (NI) 62 #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. its directors and its officers who signed and issued cheques .. 141-.President of society issued cheque.. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 731 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 947 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4572 : 2006(1) ALJ 164 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 225(NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 719 : 2006(1) CUR CRI R 187 : 2005(4) ILR (KER.C. Vs Mac Charles India Limited.S. (Madanlal & Ors. 138. 138.S.Company .Directors .Liability depends not upon holding an office in a company but satisfying the main requirement that he was incharge and responsible for conduct of business of company at the relevant time .. 1881. Bangalore).Society or its Secretary cannot be proceeded against.).C.Prosecution of company is not sine qua non for prosecution of other persons .) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Pramod Vs C.Company .would put the accused to some sort of harassment.Cheque dishonoured .) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.Prosecution continued only against officers who signed cheques .) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S.C.Velayudhan & Ors.B..Order of cognizance against Directors quashed. on his own behalf.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.).No allegation in complaint that cheques were issued with consent or knowledge of Directors .Summons and warrants against Company and its Directors not served . Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.C. (S..Summoning order .Channabasavardhya). 138.). 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S.Dishonour of cheque .Society .).No allegation that Directors were responsible for control of day to day business of company or had active role in issuing cheques .) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR 228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190 #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. 1881. 1881. (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr.Velayudhan & Ors. 138. unless it is established that the dishonoured cheque is drawn by the society on an account maintained by the society itself.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 731 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 947 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 4572 : 2006(1) ALJ 164 (N) : 2006(2) AIR KANT HCR 225(NOC) : 2006(1) ALL CRI LR 719 : 2006(1) CUR CRI R 187 : 2005(4) ILR (KER. 1881.K. 1881. 1881.) 412 : 2005(4) KHCACJ 210 : 2006(1) RCR(CRI. 138. Vs R. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.Case split up .Society . 141-.C.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 720 (S. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd.).) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.Director . 140..Ltd.) : 2004(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 473 (S. 1881.Proceedings against petitioner quashed.Partnership .Company . 141-.) 237 S. 138. 141-.Director . (S.Shankar Vs M/s.Petitioner resigned and he was not Director either on the date when the cheques were issued or when the cause of action arose .C. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 386 (P&H) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 700 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0172 #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Proceedings against petitioner quashed. (Ashok Muthanna. 1881.Held. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 418 (BOMBAY) : 2004(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 342 (BOMBAY) : 2004 CRI LJ 2343 : 2004(20) ALL IND CAS 188 : 2004 ALL MR(CRI.C.Company . the liability can be only in terms of fine as the company is responsible for the acts of commissions and omissions of the persons working for it.) : AIR 2005 SC 2436 : 2005 CRI LJ 2566 : 2005 AIR SCW 2364 : 2005(52) ALL CRI C 474 : 2005(3) ALL CRI LR 87 : 2005(2) ALL CRI R 1858 : 2005(30) ALL IND CAS 51 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI) 1580 : 2005(2) ALT(CRI.).).He had not either drawn or signed the cheque .Amman Steel Corporation). & Anr. 141-.Dishonour of cheque .) 1857 : 2004(2) UJ(SC) 1337 : 2004(9) AD 22 #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Chaitan M.2 who was in sole management and incharge of day-to-day affairs of the company .C.V.). 2002(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 76 (MADRAS) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0253 .Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors.Retired Director who did not function as Director either on date of cheque or when cause of action arose for non payment cannot be prosecuted. 138. 138. 1881.) 2027 : 2004(4) BANK CAS 584 : 2004(2) BOM CR(CRI.C.Partners . (K.Order of Magistrate discharging the appellants restored. 1881.) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ 838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0497 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Muzumdar & Ors.of complaint sought on ground that complaint when read as a whole not disclosing commission of an offence or that some of the accused are lawyers and/or other professionals who had no scope for direct participation in the conduct of business of the company .Absence of averments in complaint that partners are Incharge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm .Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988. 141.P. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd.C. Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.. 138.He had resigned from the Board of Directors before issuance of the cheque . 141-.He was merely a non-executive Director of the Company . (Punjab State Coop.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 488 (S.).) : 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (S.Partnership firm . 142-.K.Maniar Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. Vs Wipro Finance Ltd. 2005(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 604 (S.) 1020 : #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.It was accused No.Company . Vs Gujarat State Fertilizer Co.If certain crimes are committed by its officials. 138. 2004(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 598 (S. 139.). (S.Company . Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd.) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. Vs M/s Malerkotla Rice Mills & Ors.) 14 : 2004(3) CIV LR 294 : 2004(2) MAH LJ 1035 #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Monaben Ketanbhai Shah & Anr.When company is convicted. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.) SC 278 : 2005(2) BANK CLR 528 : 2005(3) BANK CAS 1 : 2005 BANKING J 406 : 2005(3) CTC 380 : 2005 CAL CRI LR 267 : 2005 CG LJ 391 : 2005(3) CIV LJ 620 : 2005(125) COM CAS 188 : 2005 CRI LR(SC MAH GUJ) SC 450 : 2005 CRI LR (SC&MP) SC 450 : 2005(2) CRIMES 141 (SC) : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 167 : 2005(2) EAST CRI C 291 : 2005(2) GCD SC 1627 : 2005(3) GUJ LR 2053 : 2005(3) ICC 444 : ILR(KANT. the question whether a person is in charge of or is responsible to the company for conduct of its business is to be adjudicated on the basis of materials to be placed by the parties and whether allegations contained are sufficient to attract culpability is matter for adjudication at the trial... 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM.) ) 2005 SC 2494 : 2005(3) KCCR 1557 : 2005(2) KHCACJ 226 : 2005(4) MPHT 163 : 2005(3) MPLJ 271 : 2005(3) MAH LJ 754 : 2005(31) OCR 645 : 2005(2) REC CRI R 860 : 2005(4) SCC 173 : 2005(4) SCJ 503 : 2005(4) SRJ 597 : 2005(4) SCALE 354 : 2005 SCC(CRI. CR (CRI.Notice not given to petitioner who was one of the directors of the company .) BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6) BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI. : 2004(3) BLJR 1763 : 2004(2) BANK CLR 714 : 2004 BANK J 906 : 2004(2) BOM. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78 #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : AIR 2004 SC 4274 : 2004 CRI LJ 4249 : 2004 AIR SCW 4716 : 2004(6) ACE 529 : 2004(2) ALL CJ 1935 : 2004(50) ALL CRI C 412 : 2004(3) ALL CRI LR 963 : 2004(3) ALL CRI R 2084 : 2004(21) ALL IND CAS 1 : 2004(56) ALL LR 713 : 2004(2) ALT (CRI. 1881. 1881.). 138.. 141-. the company is liable for prosecution .All the partners cannot be proceed as accused on the assumption that liability of all the partners is joint as only those partners who are actually incharge of the firm and are responsible for the conduct of its business can be proceeded against as accused. 1881..B.C.) 512 : 2004 CAL CRI R 1007 : 2004(2) CAL LJ 215 : 2004(3) CHAND LR (CIV&CRI) 714 : 2004(4) CIV LJ 717 : 2004(5) COM LJ SC 91 : 2004(61) COR LA 168 : 2004(3) CRIMES 231 (SC) : 2004(3) CUR CRI R 88 : 2004(3) EAST CRI C 158 : 2005(1) GCD SC 325 : 2004(3) GUJ LH 769 : 2005(1) GUJ LR 21 : 2004(4) ICC 680 : 2004(22) IND LD 145 : 2004(2) JCJR 172 : JT 2004(6) SC 309 : 2004(3) KHCACJ 570 : 2004(3) KLT 428 : 2005(1) MPHT 97 : 2004(29) OCR 149 : 2004(4) PAT LJR 91 : 2004(3) PLR 615 : 2004(3) RAJ CRI C 753 : 2004(4) RAJ LW 499 : 2004(3) REC CRI R 799 : 2004(7) SCC 15 : 2004(54) SEBI&CL SC 595 : 2004(7) SRJ 548 : 2004(6) SCALE 507 : 2004 SCC(CRI. 1881.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Director Vs M/s Gontermann Peipers (India) Limited).). 1881.Company . 141-. (Dev Vs State of A.) #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. 141-. (Kumari Vs Sankara Raman). 138.. 1881. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.Partnership firm .C. Ltd. (S.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S. 1881.Obligation as required u/s 141 is discharged . (S.Filed complaint on behalf of company/firm .Chhabra. Vs Raj Kumar Aggarwal). 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 57 (A. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S. 1881.P. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. 141-.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.Directors and General Manager .C.Subramaniam & Ors. (Sham Lal.No authorisation is required.C.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S. accountant who is responsible to the company for the conduct of its business can be prosecuted.Held.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.A director cannot be proceed against merely for the reason that he happens to be a director of the company..By virtue of the office they hold. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0348 #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Director . G.#15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Auto Industries Pvt.C.).) : 2002(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 275 (A.)..C..Can be proceeded against only if he was at the time of commission of the offence was in charge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company . (S.Company . 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 370 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 505 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0083 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.S. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (P&H) #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Petitioners alleged to be responsible for the conduct of the business of the company . Vs Vasavi Cotton Traders).Accountant .S. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 1881. (Punjab State Coop.C.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.Company .Such person is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and is covered u/s 141 (2) of the Act. Director.M. 138-.P..Complaint cannot be quashed .) : 2002(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 655 (A.) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S. 141-.Company .) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.When a person is not the incharge of the company and is not responsible for conduct and business of the company.Pharmaceuticals Ltd.Company . 141-. petitioners are entitled to prove that offence was committed without their knowledge during trial.P.Company .M.S. 141-. 1881.C.P. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 663 (A. 1881. 141. (S. he is not responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company.Specific allegation that he is also looking after the affairs of the company . they are persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and they are covered u/s 141 of the Act.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ..P..Managing Director and Joint Managing Director . 138.However. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 79 (KERALA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0638 : 2001(2) KLT 503 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 150 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141.Signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured .Partners who are not incharge of the firm and are not responsible for the conduct of its business are not liable and cannot be proceeded against.C.Manager ..C. 138-.P. Vs M/s Malerkotla Rice Mills). 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 645 (KARNATAKA) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0708 #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138. 138.Allegations made in the complaint cannot be read along with the sworn statement recorded at the time of taking the complaint on file and the allied document to find out whether any prima facie case is made out against the accused for the alleged offence The sworn statement and statements recorded on oath by the Magistrate at the time of taking cognizance of an offence on complaint do not form an integral part of the complaint..A Director is liable only if he is incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time and there has to be an averment in the complaint to this effect .). 1881.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.Janakimanoharan & Anr. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd..Court at Delhi has jurisdiction.1 Company in connection with business transaction .Jurisdiction .. 2003(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 580 (P&H) : 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 18 (P&H) #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.S. in addition to persons who are covered in sub-section (1) of S.).Notice issued to drawer from Delhi but no payment made .There must be clear factual foundation laid in the complaint itself attracting the ingredients of S. 141-. (S.141 shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall also liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.C.. (S..Chhabra.Notice served on Company .) ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 2000(1) AD(DELHI) 387 #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 33 : 2001(1) RCR (CR) 134 (DELHI) .Complaint singed by the counsel but not by the complainant .Even in the absence of the minutes of the Board.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801 #4: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Service of demand notice on Company. 138.Complaint filed again when limitation had expired . 138-. 141-.Directors . (K.2001 (SUPP.No illegality in filing the complaint . 141-.) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.The facts stated in the complaint must disclose commission of an offence by each one of the accused . 141-. Directors.Besides that.Without this averment being made in a complaint. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.Goenka Vs State). 138.C. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd. 1881. 141-. 141-.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Arun Hegde Vs M. 138.141 shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly . 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (DELHI) : 1999 .Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque presented at Delhi and dishonoured . 141-. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S..C.Director .Complaint by Recovery Manager who held special power of attorney from Managing Director .Sub-section (2) is in addition to sub-section (1) This means that a person who is covered by sub-section (1) of S.) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (DELHI) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) 0103 : 2001 ALL MR (CRL. 1881.Notice shall be deemed to have been served upon Directors of Company.). (A. the requirements of S. 141.Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A.138 of the Act against every person arrayed as an accused in the complaint .J.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited). 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A. 138.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S. (M/s Prem Cashew Industries Vs Zen Pareo). 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A. 1881.Merely being a Director of a company is not sufficient to make him liable . those persons who are covered under subsection (2) of S.. Director Vs M/s Gontermann Peipers (India) Limited).2 and 3. 1881.Notice . on behalf of accused No..Company . 141-.P.C.M.Complaint not to be dismissed as initial date of presentation is the criteria.).Shetty).K.Provision is in two parts . the Special Power of Attorney executed by the Chairman and Managing Director is sufficient to authorise Recovery Manager to launch the prosecution. (Inder Sehgal Vs M/s Thakar Petro Chemicals Ltd. 1881.P. 1881.Returned .P.Company . 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 596 (P&H) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0348 #25: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque jointly issued by accused Nos. 1881.Company .A person other than 'company' can be proceeded against if it is shown that he was incharge of and was responsible to the company or the firm for the conduct of its business.C. shall be deemed to be also the service thereof on its Directors.Company .141 of the Act.141 cannot be said to be satisfied. ) 0269 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Managing Director.To be decided at the trial . 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited).Complaint against Directors . 138.Complaint against Directors of company must contain factual foundation disclosing their liability .. Chairman. 1881.Nothing on record to show that there was any act committed by them to draw the inference that they were vicariously liable .Complaint held. 138.) ISJ (BANKING) 0652 : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0013 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL. 138. 1881.Mere whisper in complaint suggesting their involvement . 141-.P.2 to 7 are its directors responsible for its day to day functioning as such are jointly and severally liable to the dues of the complainant . Managing Director M/s Fidelity Industries Ltd. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 98 (MADRAS) : 1996 . 141-.Ltd. 1881.#7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (DELHI) : 2000(3) REC CRI R 315 : 2000(2) AD (DELHI) 244 : 2000(52) DRJ 261 #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Averments in complaint that cheque was issued by authorised signatory of Company at instruction of accused who were incharge of day-to-day affairs of company and that they had taken a vital role in issuing cheque . (K. is liable to be quashed. 138.) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Directors are not liable for prosecution unless it is alleged in the complaint that they were in charge of and responsible to the company for conduct of its business and that cheques were issued with their consent and connivance . (Saraswathy Amma Vs M/s Swil Limited).C.Held. 141-.99 (SUPP. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 74 (P&H) #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 141-. 138. (Natesha Singh Vs M/s Klen and Marshalls of Manufacturers and Exporters Pvt.T. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (DELHI) : 1996 .As regards Managing Director it could safely be inferred from his duties that he was vicariously liable for the offence.Company .) #12: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.99 (SUPP.) 0322 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT .Ltd.Directors are not vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company.P.Complaint against Chairman and others quashed . 1881.. 1881. Manager etc.P. complaint states that Managing Director. 1881.Averment in complaint that accused Nos. (Thapar Agro Mills Vs Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation). 138. 1881. 1881.).Not sufficient.Complaint against Directors. nine Directors and three officers of the Company .) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Other Directors can be proceeded against only if it is specifically alleged in complaint that they too participated in commission of offence .Dishonour of cheque ..) ISJ (BANKING) 0616 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0295 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. Vs M/s Gayatri Sugar Complex Limited).Dishonour of cheque .Janakimanoharan & Anr. Vs State).Company .C. Vs Wipro Finance Ltd. 141-.Not permissible to go into the questions u/s 482 Cr. (FMI Investments Pvt. 138.Petitioners not vicariously liable .For holding a person vicariously liable for the offence committed by a Company or a firm it is the actual role played by such a person in the management and conduct of the business of the company or the firm..Cognizance taken against other Directors in absence of specific allegation against them. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A.Dishonour of cheque .) 0031 : 1999 (96) COMP. 1881.However.Company a Sick Industrial Unit .Janakimanoharan & Anr.Partnership firm . Two Executive Directors and one Director . 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . (Rohinton Noria Vs M/s NCC Finance Ltd. (K.. 141-.Company .). 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 493 (A.Person who was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for conduct of business of Company is liable to be proceeded against .Complaint against Company. of Delhi). 141-. 138.Company .. maintainable and not liable to be quashed. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (MADRAS) : 2001(2) CTC 78 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) : 2000 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0725 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL. Two Executive Directors and one Director are in-charge of and responsible to the company and looking after the day to day affairs of the company Disputed question of fact . (Tiruchandoor Muruhan Spinning Mills (Private) Limited & Ors. 138. 138. CASES 0538 : 2001(2) LW (CRI. with clear averment in the complaint that they were responsible for non payment of the amount after receipt of notice within statutory period .Vicarious liability of Directors .P. 141-. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 566 (A. 1881. Vs Madanlal Ramkumar Cotton & General Merchants). (Ashok Muthanna. of N. no ground to quash the complaint..Petition dismissed. .Complaint filed against Company.No ground to quash the proceedings u/s 482 Cr.. 141-.Petitioner alleged to have resigned from post of Director even before issuance of cheque . its Chairman.) 611 #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Vicarious liability .)..Company .Prosecution of all the five partners of the firm Petitioners had executed power of attorney in favour of one partner .Company . Managing Director. (Sunil Sareen Vs Govt. 141-.It is not a ground to quash complaint u/ss 138. However.Both these forms have been issued by the Registrar of Companies . 138-.. 19. 141-..32 issued by the Registrar of Companies showing that the petitioner remained Director of the said Company upto 9. 138-.) 0502 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).).) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142. (D.Absence of an averment in the complaint that the Managing Director is in-charge and responsible to the Company .Partnership firm . Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited.1991 . (A.).. hence liable for prosecution .Company . 1881.Accused described as Managing Director of the Company and the agreement. (M..Chandra Reddy Vs Ghourisetti Prabhakar & Anr. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (KARNATAKA) : 1999 .It is a disputed question of fact . 1881.Notice to company is sufficient compliance .P.Company . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.No claim made against assets of the company .Director . 138. 1881.) 0309 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.7. (Jose Antony Vs Official Liquidator).Manipal Reddy Vs State of A.Dishonoured .Managing Director .2001 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0221 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.2001 (SUPP.Normally a Managing Director is supposed to be incharge of managing the Company and would obviously be responsible to the Company. it is open to the petitioners to plead always that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.P.Complaint against Directors of Company .P.) #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.A-5 is a financial controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company. 141. 141.Complaint against `D' quashed. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 1999 . (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited.Company . 141-.Averments in complaint that petitioners were in-charge of and responsible to the affairs of the company and cheques issued with their consent and knowledge .f. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 315 (A. describes him as Managing Direction and even the reply notice sent by the Company.) ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 2000(1) AD(DELHI) 387 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It is not for complainant to make a research to find out Directors who were incharge and responsible to the Company for conduct of business of Company . 138-.Manipal Reddy Vs State of A. & Anr. which is the basis for the liability for payment of money on the part of the accused.446 of the Companies Act is not attracted in criminal proceedings where the assets of the company are not involved and the proceedings pending against the accused were only in respect of the commission of the offence and the punishment thereon.K.It is open to Directors to prove that offence was committed without their knowledge or that due diligence was taken to prevent such offence.S.). (B.Company .P.Sharma Vs M/s Ashok Kumar Pradeep Kumar). 138. (B. 138-.) #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 123 (DELHI) : 2000 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0807 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL. (Pritama Reddy Vs Charminar Co-operative Urban Bank Ltd.A-2 is the Chief Managing Director and Signatory.Company .Guruswamy Vs M/s Shree Balaji Cotton Industries). 138.P.Company . 1881.) #21: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Mumbai & Ors.Rajender Vs State of A. & Anr.Under liquidation and Official Liquidator appointed Cheque issued by Company and signed by Managing Director . 1881. 1881..). of which the accused is the Managing Director shows that he has been the Managing Director of the Company . 1881. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 265 (A.No separate notice need be given to the partner of firm who issued the cheque which is subject matter of complaint. before initiating proceedings under the Act.Cheque issued by Company and signed by one `D' its Managing Director .No ground to quash the complaint . 1881. Hyderabad & Anr. 141-.Can only be decided at the trial.).Petitioner already resigned at the relevant time Form No. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (DELHI) : 1999 .32 issued by the Registrar of Companies shows that the petitioner has resigned from the said post of the Company w. 141. 138-.) . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A..P.446 of the Companies Act ..P.Goenka Vs State). 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 318 (A.Mere absence of averment in the complaint that the accused is in-charge of and responsible to the Company does not justify quashing of the proceedings Petition dismissed.Criminal proceedings cannot be stayed under S. 1881.. 138. as such he is liable for prosecution Complaint against A-4 quashed. (R.Complaint against company and its Directors Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of the Directors . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 652 (A. & Anr.Negotiable Instruments Act.Company ..) : 2001 ISJ (BANKING) 0801 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque .A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to what role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted .Company .2001 (SUPP.`D' sought to be prosecuted in his personal capacity .1.P. 141.Non impleading of the other Directors of the Company Contention to be raised at the trial only.Managing Director .Complainant placed on record a copy of the Form No. 141. 141-.1997 .) ISJ (BANKING) 0249 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.A-1 is company and is liable for prosecution .C. 1881.P.No allegation in the complaint that the offence was committed by the company and that `D' is sought to be prosecuted by virtue of the provision u/s 141 of the Act in his capacity as an officer or the person in-charge of and responsible to for the conduct of the business of the company .e. (B.. 141-. but such proof can be put forth only at the time of trial.A-3 is the Director and authorised signatory and is thus liable for prosecution . (P.. 138.No ground to quash the complaint . (Anas Industries Vs Suresh Bafna).99 (SUPP. 138. (Saravanan Vs G. it is sufficient to make an allegation in the complaint with regard to the liability of the accused .Ltd.Cannot be said that Directors were actually incharge and responsible for conduct of business .P.) 0486 #4: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (CALCUTTA) #6: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.3 is the Managing Director and Accused No.Factual points to be decided by trial Court.Complaint is liable to be quashed.Receipt of notice by any other person may not be acceptable and valid acknowledgment of notice . 1999 (SUPPL.P.No illegality in summoning the partners as it is asserted in the complaint that both the partners are responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. notice to the company is sufficient compliance of S.Proceedings against Directors . 1999 (SUPPL. 1881. 138. 141-.138 and no separate notice need be given to all the accused.P.) 0645 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL.Company .Held. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 303 (A.Officer of Quasi Govt. Accused No. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (DELHI) : 1996 . 141-.Pannir Selvam Vs M. 1881.) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (A. (Jain Associates Vs Deepak Chawdhery & Co.Accused No. 138.Industries Vs Gajanand Khandelwal).Notice .). 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 701 (MADRAS) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0532 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. (Bhavesh Bharatbhai Mehta & Ors.Dishonour of cheque .Partnership firm .141 of the Act Contention that notice not given to the petitioner .Complaint filed by Manager of the Company . 141-.Dishonour of cheque .#2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-.Complaint filed against firm instead of proprietor . (K.Should be sent to the drawer of the cheque and not to all the persons who can be deemed to be liable apart from the drawer of the cheque by virtue of the provision in S. (Girish K.Rajender Vs State of A.Ravinder Reddy Vs M/s NCC Finance Ltd.B.2001 (SUPP.Sampath).Sole proprietorship concern is not a judicial person to come under Criminal Prosecution .Notice to firm is sufficient as no person other than the drawer of the cheque is required to be given notice. 1999 (SUPPL. 1881. Company issuing cheque on behalf of Company .).It is stated in the complaint that the offence had been committed with the consent and connivance of the accused Nos. Ltd.)..P. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (A.Every partner incharge and responsible for conduct of firm is guilty . 1881. Vs Lakshmi Finance & Industrial Corp.Ayyappa).Vague allegations that cheques were issued with consent.Cheque issued by Managing Director of Company .Petitioner who is a partner of the firm arrayed as an accused by virtue of the provision of S. 138.Notice need not to be given to each and every partner .Such person is presumed to have knowledge about the day to day business of the firm .Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that Manager was neither drawee nor holder in due course .Bhandari & Anr.Complaint against accused only without impleading the firm .Complaint is maintainable .) CIVIL COURT CASES 44 (MADRAS) #5: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Partnership firm . CASES 0250 : 1999(4) AD (DELHI) 385 : 80(1999) DLT 654 : 1999(2) JCC 383 : 2000(2) CRIMES 374 #9: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.M.Held.) 0764 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Company . 138..4 is an Executive Director of the Company .Sole proprietorship concern . 1881..) : 1999 . Vs State of Gujarat & Ors.C. 1881. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (A. 141-.) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.).Company .2 to 4 .P.Every partner need not to be given notice ..Every person who is incharge of and is responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly .).) ISJ (BANKING) 0049 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR .Unless it is established that the firm alone was liable to discharge the liability. knowledge and connivance of Directors .No allegations in the complaint that Directors of the Company were in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company at the time of the alleged commission of the offence .) #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Partnership firm . the complainant could not be compelled to add the firm as accused. (M/s M. 138..) CIVIL COURT CASES 315 (MADRAS) #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.T.Notice . 138.Whether they are actually liable or not will have to be considered through evidence. 1881..) ISJ (BANKING) 0723 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0391 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (GUJARAT) #10: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-.Complaint against signatory only without impleading Company . & Anr.Complaint against partnership firm and its two partners . (M...) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0231 : 2000(2) CRIMES 354 #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice sent to partnership firm . 1881. 141-.Notice to the firm demanding payment .).. 138.Complaint is not maintainable . (S. 141-.Complaint quashed.) 0326 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0004 #11: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Partnership firm . 1999 (SUPPL.Cheque dishonoured . 141-. 141-.Company .Ramasamy Vs T. 138.Liable to be quashed.2 is the Director.141 of the Act. 1881. 138.). 141-.Dishonour of cheque .If the complainant has become wiser during the course of preliminary evidence such statement cannot make a fresh premise in order to summon and prosecute respondents No. 138.Company .Protection of S..Held. 1881. 138. 141-.(A. 1881. 1881. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A. 138.. 141.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. complaint is maintainable. 141-.Criminal proceedings against the Company and against the Managing Director and two directors . 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL.446 of Companies Act is available to the Company but not to its Directors.). 138.Special provisions contained in the Negotiable Instruments Act prevail over the provisions of Companies Act. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H) #19: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Directors who signed the cheque cannot escape the criminal liability . 138.Partners . & Ors. 1881. without authorisation a Director or any similarly situated person cannot maintain a complaint.Company .Complaint filed against directors only ..). 1881. (Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd.) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.) 0460 #12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.Notice whether is in conformity to the provisions of the Act is a matter of evidence . 1881.Such allegations in the preliminary statement will not help the complainant . L.Company . 4383 : (1998)75 DLT 155 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Metals). (Modern Denim Ltd.P.Complaint filed in the name of Company through Administrative manager who has signed the complaint ..No special authority is required . (Tara Chand & Ors.P.) 0109 : 1999 (3) CTC 0145 #13: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J. (Anil Hada Vs Indian Acrylics Ltd. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 397 (MADRAS) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0739 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Held. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL.Company .Company going into liquidation .No allegation that respondents No. (Kishori Lal Vs Pawan Kumar).Onus is on the complaint to show that persons sought to be proceeded against were incharge of and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business .Charge against the two directors quashed.Company . 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 657 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0023 #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-.Complaint by Director .Company .No such averment in the complaint against the petitioner .) 0309 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. CASES 0092 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL. (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers)..Company not made an accused .P. (Mahendra Pratap Singh Ratra Vs M/s N. there is no evidence to show that at the time of commission of offence they were incharge of and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company . 141-. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0509 : 1998 (2) AIJ 0182 : 1998 (2) PLR 0562 #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Except for the bald statement that they are Directors.. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 434 (GUJARAT) : 1998 CRI LJ 700 : 1998(2) ALL INDIA CRI LR 399 #21: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-.Complaint qua petitioners quashed.Sleeping director . (Geekay Exim (India) Ltd. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (P&H) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Prosecution against the Company and its two Directors who signed the cheque . 1956.Cheque issued by Managing Director ..Every person who at the time the offence was committed was in charge of and was responsible to the Company for the conduct of the business of the company would be deemed to be guilty of the offence .Charge sought to be quashed by the two Directors .).Company discharged . 141-. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 257 (DELHI) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0287 : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0368 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0181 : 1998 CRL..) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP.Directors .) #16: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. complaint against such Directors quashed.Company . 141-..Directors even if not alleged to be incharge of the business of the company and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company in the complaint then the same can well be supplied at the trial by adducing evidence .Held.Question of authorisation arises only if the complaint is filed in person name for and on behalf of the company .3 & 4 .) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H. 138. 141-.No averment in the complaint or preliminary evidence that both the Directors were incharge and responsible to the company for conduct of its business and offence was committed by them . Vs Lucas TVS Ltd.3 & 4 were the incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm . 138. Vs M/s Dabkauli Trading Company).It is also a matter of evidence whether the notice issued to the company alone and no notice was issued to the .Company .C.Cannot be prosecuted .) 0029 : 1999 (97) COMP.Proceedings against the petitioner quashed. 138.. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.Nothing in complaint to show that petitioners were incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company . 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 690 (CALCUTTA) #20: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881.Held. (Mohan Kumar Mukherjee Vs Ledo Tea Company Limited).Notice issued to company .K.J. 141-. Magistrate is not right in summoning them in order to face the criminal liability and as such the charge against them could not sustain in the eyes of law. 141-.Prosecution can be launched either against company alone.Prosecution of Chairman alone without impleading the Company . (K. (M/s Visva Cement Products. 1881.Company . LR (RAJASTHAN) 0847 : 1998(2) CIVIL LJ 0067 : 1997(3) RCR(CRL.Payment of Rs.Each of them is independently liable for punishment.company and the accused persons .P.Complaint cannot be quashed.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates). CASES 0830 : 1997 CRL..Cheque dishonoured .J. 141-. 138.Averments in complaint that accused are active and responsible Directors of the Company .Veerabhadra Rao Vs Govt. 1881.Payment not made within time . 1997 (SUPPL. 141.He is the person who is having the full knowledge of the transactions of the Company and he is the right person to speak about the transactions that had taken place between the complainant .P. 141-. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0025 : 1997 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. 141-.. 1545 : 1997(2) CCR 0503 : 1997 CRI LR (RAJ) 0185 : 1997 RAJ CRI 0391 : 1997 (2) RAJ LW 0726 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice issued . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (A.) 0216 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 0433 : 1998(94) COMP. 138..P. (A. 1881. 141.of . 1881. CASES 0230 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella Knitwear).Again dishonoured .Complaint filed by power .J. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0385 : 1998 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0629 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. complaint cannot be quashed. (Krishna Sachdeva Vs Modella Knitwear). 138.Complaint against partners . CASES 0186 : 1998 (1) CLR 0390 #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice issued after the cheque was dishonoured fourth time .J. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 284 (A. 138. 1881. CASES 0230 #25: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Gadag).P. L.Complainant not yet admitted the receipt of this amount against the cheque .Cheque dishonoured . re-presentment of the cheque does not give a fresh cause. 141-.) 0287 : 1999 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0470 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0253 : 1999 (96) COMP. 1881.A.Held.Prima facie offence against directors is made out . 1595 : 1997 (2) CCR 0574 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL.).Company . 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 408 (P&H) #6: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138..Further it is also a matter of evidence whether notice issued to the company could be taken to be a notice to the directors of the company it is the directors composing the company to whom the issuance of notice would matter . CASES 0797 : 1997 CRL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 593 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRI.No ground to quash the proceedings on the plea that complaint did not disclose that accused were responsible to the company for conduct of its affairs. 142-. 141-.141.Complaint is maintainable .Company includes firm .Company . or both together .P. there is no irregularity.P.Under S. (P..Prayer to quash complaint declined.P. 138. (Sunil Behal Vs Bliagwat Dayal Gupta & Anr. 138.Cheque issue by servant .Subramanian & Ors. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (P&H) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0025 : 1997 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL.Cheque issued with consent of directors of Company Cheque dishonoured .) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Prayer of quashment of complaint declined as it is a question of fact. but there is no requirement that both of them should be prosecuted .) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H) #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Aruna Khurana & Ors.Presented for the second time .. of A.Held. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 136 (A. 138.attorney executed in favour of Accounts Officer of the Company .Cheque dishonoured ...Complaint filed . if cheque is presented again and again. 142-. 1881.Amounts to issuing of cheque by the principal. CASES 0335 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.Their liability is independent .) 0179 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0487 : 1998 (93) COMP.20 lacs after institution of complaint . 138. 1881.directors thereof . 138.Firm when prosecuted alongwith partner who had signed the cheque .Held.) 0209 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.) 0660 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Singh Kalra Vs The Star Wire India Ltd.) 0277 #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). it is open to . (R. 1881. complaint is maintainable.) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.).) 0530 : 1994 BJ 0652 : 1994 CRL. (T. 141-.Complaint is maintainable .).Firm not a party .P.Held.All the directors arrayed as accused . 1881. 141. 1997 (SUPPL.of ..Company .) 0169 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Gadag Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation.. 142-. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers).attomey holder Power .Held. NOC 0158 : 1993 (3) ANDH LT 0705 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0071 : (1994) MAD LJ (CRL. (Lallu Lal Agrawal Vs Damodar Prasad Gupta). L. the Company and the person who is incharge and responsible to Company for conduct of its business are both liable for punishment.) : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. complaint is maintainable. Vs Kamakshi Extractions & Anr. 138. or person in charge of affairs of company alone.Company .Ramachandran Vs Yerram Sesha Reddy).Held.Company .) 0253 : 1999 (97) COMP.. the cause of prosecute subsists but if notice has been issued thereafter. 1881. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 40 (KARNATAKA) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Notice issued to the Company is sufficient .Company ..the accused to make it clear by filing application fixing responsibility . 138. 138.P. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 141-.Held. 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (CALCUTTA) : 1992(2) KLT 35 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint is maintainable when filed only against the person who issued the cheque. 138. Vs Union of India & Ors.J.Prosecution against Company and/or other individual officials named therein cannot be quashed. certain officials of the company arrayed as accused Absence of such averments in the complaint not material . (Manimekalai Vs Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi).) : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0299 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL. Bills of Exchange.Mohan Krishna & Ors. 1997 (SUPPL. L.Complaint by power of attorney holder . L. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 378 (MADRAS) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.). 1881. 141. 138.. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL. (Dilip Kumar Jaiswal Vs Debapriya Banerjee). 141-. Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.Doraisamy Vs M/s Archana Enterprises).Matters covered by S. 141-.).Dishonour of cheque .Separate notice to the Director is not required. 1881. Promissory Notes and other like instruments' .138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.P. 138.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates).B.Directors of the company sought quashment of complaint on the plea that they were neither in charge of nor responsible for the affairs of the company .) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 156 (BOMBAY) : 1995 ISJ (BANKING) 0064 : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0408 : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0800 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0462 : 1994 (80) COMP.. Entries 45. (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors. 142-.) 0468 #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT .Company is maker of the cheque . 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.Occurring in Entries Nos.`Person incharge and responsible' . 1881.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of ListI (Union List. 141-. 142-. Union List.If such an application is made.. 2306 : 1995 MLJ (CRL. Cheques.Held. 1881. 141-. 1102 #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..A.Dishonour of cheque . Vs Union of India & Ors.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Not brought on record so far Petitioner to bring this fact on record when the trial starts and only then he can apply for quashing complaint against him.. 138. 141-.J. (Manimekalai Vs Chapaldas Kalyanji Sanghvi).Cheque dishonoured . 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 292 (MADRAS) : 1995 (2) RCR (CRL. 1881. 46 . as there is no allegation in the complaint against the petitioners that they are incharge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. 1881. 138.. 142-.Dishonour of cheque .Constitution of India. L.) 0090 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0405 : 1999 (97) COMP. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 238 (A.No allegation in the complaint that petitioner was responsible to the company or was incharge of the company . 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (N. 1102 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque issued on behalf of Company by its Director . (Rajan Kinnerkar Vs Eric Cordeiro).) (B.It is permissible.Dishonour of cheque .) 0482 #12: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (P.J. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 267 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0225 #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0183 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0600 : 1995 CRL. 141.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions .Complaint filed against partners of firm and firm not made a party . 140. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.Complaint sought to be quashed on the plea that petitioner is not incharge of the Company or at least not being one of its Directors . complaint and summoning order quashed..Partnership firm .Complaint is maintainable. Seventh Schedule. 1881.J. CASES 0129 : 1995 CRL. 138. 141-.No act or negligence attributed to him Complaint qua the petitioner quashed.Company ..Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.P. Court may pass necessary orders giving notice to the complainant. (Sushil Singla Vs Haripal Singh). 139.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude . CASES 0487 : 1994 BJ 0536 : 1994 (2) CRIMES 0259 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Words `Banking.) 0183 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0600 : 1995 CRL.There is no provision in the Act that Company has also to be prosecuted alongwith person who issued cheque on behalf of the Company .). 1881. 138.) (D. 140.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. (M. 138. 1881. (Raj Kumar Mangla Vs Indo Lowebrau Breweries).Specific averment as to persons responsible for conduct of its business not made .) CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (P&H) #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.However.Venkateswara Rao Vs Medarametla Venkateswarlu & Ors. 139. L. 141. ) 0655 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0557 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0619 : 1994 CRL.) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.). 138-.S. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A. Manager. 138-.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S. (B. 141-.It is open to Directors to prove that offence was committed without their knowledge or that due diligence was taken to prevent such offence. (A.K.J.).) ISJ (BANKING) 0418 : 2000(1) AD(DELHI) 387 #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. liability under the provision arises if the offence was committed with his consent.P. which is the basis for the liability for payment of money on the part of the accused.C. 141-.Managing Director .Negotiable Instruments Act.J.) 0090 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0405 : 1999 (97) COMP. describes him as Managing Direction and even the reply notice sent by the Company.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.P.C.Manju Podar & Anr. 1881.Complaint against . 1881.Manju Podar & Anr. (Mrs.Persons incharge of and responsible to company for conduct of its business can alone be prosecuted irrespective of whether Company is prosecuted or not.. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 351 (KERALA) : 1999 . 141-. NOC 0446 : 1994 (1) PLR 0634 : 1994 (2) CUR CRI R 1446 #20: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. Section 141.C. 1881.Mere absence of averment in the complaint that the accused is in-charge of and responsible to the Company does not justify quashing of the proceedings Petition dismissed.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S. 2306 : 1995 MLJ (CRL..M. 138-.Company . 1881. connivance or due to his negligence.Dishonour of cheque . Section 141. Section 141. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (DELHI) : 1999 . Secretary etc. & Anr. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 608 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0228 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0508 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.) #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .Manipal Reddy Vs State of A. 141-. CASES 0129 : 1995 CRL. 1881.If the person committing an offence is a company then every person who was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company at the time the offence was committed.P..Cheque dishonoured . L.Accused described as Managing Director of the Company and the agreement.It is not for complainant to make a research to find out Directors who were incharge and responsible to the Company for conduct of business of Company . 138-.).Company .) ISJ (BANKING) 0221 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.Company .) 0502 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Not maintainable .Dishonour of cheque . Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.Signatory of a cheque which is dishonoured . & Anr.).) 0347 : 1992(36) MLJ 102 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured .Goenka Vs State).Company . 1881.Complaint is maintainable against the proprietor only.446 of the Companies Act is not attracted in criminal proceedings where the assets of the company are not involved and the proceedings pending against the accused were only in respect of the commission of the offence and the punishment thereon. CASES 0749 : 1993 BJ 0184 : 1992 (2) CRIMES 0374 : 1992 LW (CRL.Under liquidation and Official Liquidator appointed . (Sri Sivasakthi Industries Vs Arihant Metal Corporation).Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.2001 (SUPP. (N. Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.J. (Jose Antony Vs Official Liquidator).Even if not incharge and not responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.) 0655 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0557 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0619 : 1994 CRL.Normally a Managing Director is supposed to be incharge of managing the Company and would obviously be responsible to the Company. 138-. Section 141. 1881..Proprietary concern .P.Company .Company .). Section 141.C.Complaint against Directors of Company . 1881.No claim made against assets of the company Criminal proceedings cannot be stayed under S.Doraisamy Vs M/s Archana Enterprises).2001 (SUPP. (Mrs. (B.S.446 of the Companies Act .) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC .) 0482 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Such person is clearly responsible for the incriminating act and is covered u/s 141 (2) of the Act.. shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and so also the company.Absence of an averment in the complaint that the Managing Director is in-charge and responsible to the Company . 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 378 (MADRAS) : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL..Manipal Reddy Vs State of A. L. L. (S. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 194 (A.Managing Director .. of which the accused is the Managing Director shows that he has been the Managing Director of the Company .Director. . 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 608 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0228 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0508 : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.Cheque issued by Company and signed by Managing Director . NOC 0446 : 1994 (1) PLR 0634 : 1994 (2) CUR CRI R 1446 #21: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 388 (MADRAS) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0263 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1992 (74) COMP. Director .Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr.Condonation 13 days delay .M. Section 138.A-1 is company and is liable for prosecution .Company . 2008(3) . Section 141.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S. (Subodh S.C.Complaint . (S. as such he is liable for prosecution Complaint against A-4 quashed.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.S..Dishonour of cheque . (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.C. Section 141.C. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..).C.P.(CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138.C. (S. hence liable for prosecution . (P. Section 141. 1881. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Without this averment being made in a complaint. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S. 1881. they are persons in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and they are covered u/s 141 of the Act.Dishonour of cheque .C.141 cannot be said to be satisfied. 1881.C.However. Hyderabad & Anr..) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Accused discharged. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S.).Dishonour of cheque .Delay .Complaint against company and its Directors Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of the Directors .Delay condoned. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 142.C.P. 142(b)-. the requirements of S.).. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U. 142-.A-3 is the Director and authorised signatory and is thus liable for prosecution .P.M.) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.Condonation Insertion of proviso to S. Mumbai & Ors. 138-.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S. (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited. & Anr..S.C.A-5 is a financial controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company. insertion of the proviso is not retrospective in nature.Merely being a Director of a company is not sufficient to make him liable .) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 502 (S.Delay .Company . 1881.Shah & Anr.) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.Supported by an affidavit .Summoning order set aside . 1881.Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay .A-2 is the Chief Managing Director and Signatory.Hegde).Dishonour of cheque .A Director is liable only if he is incharge and responsible for conduct of business of the company at the relevant time and there has to be an averment in the complaint to this effect . Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited. 138-.C. 142(b)-.Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course ..C.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.).S. 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 544 (S. 138-..Pharmaceuticals Ltd.Company .Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint.). 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 265 (A.Complaint .) : 2005 CRILJ 4140 (S.) : AIR 2005 SC 3512 : 2005 AIRSCW 4740 : 2005 CLC 1382 : 2005 AIRJHARHCR 2472 : 2005(2) ALD (CRL) 595 : 2005(53) ALL CRIC 503 : 2005(4) ALLCRILR 421 : 2005(3) ALLCRIR 3082 : 2005(34) ALLINDCAS 36 : 2005(4) ALLMR 1118 : 2006(1) ANDHLT (CRI) SC 29 : 2005(3) BLJR 2108 : 2005(4) BANCAS 425 : 2005(2) BOMCR(CRI) 696 : 2005(5) CTC 65 : 2005 CALCRILR 457 : 2006(1) CIVILJ 460 : 2005(127) COMCAS 563 : 2005(6) COMLJ 144 : 2005(68) CORLA 192 : 2005 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 762 : 2005 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 762 : 2005(4) CRIMES 34 : 2005(4) CURCRIR 12 : 2005(123) DLT 275 : 2005(85) DRJ 356 : 2005(4) EASTCRIC 98 : 2005(3) GUJLH 513 : 2005(4) JLJR 75 : 2005(8) JT 450 : 2005(4) KCCR 2691 : 2005(4) KERLT 209 : MANU SC 2005 622 : 2005 MADLJ (CRI) 1138 : 2006(1) MADLW (CRI) 1 : 2005(4) MAHLJ 731 : 2005(32) OCR 646 : 2005(4) PATLJR 148 : 2005(4) RCR 141 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(7) SCJ 64 : 2005(63) SEBI&CL SC 93 : 2005(7) SLT 113 : 2005(9) SRJ 158 : 2005(7) SCALE 397 : 2005 SCC (CRI) 1975 : 2005(6) SUPREME 442 : 2006(191) TAXATION 113 : 2005(148) TAXMAN 128 : 2005(8) SCC 89 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI) 141 : 2005(3) APEX CRIMINAL 229 1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to what role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted . .). Section 138.) #1: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed .) : 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (S.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay .Delay in filing complaint Cognizance wrongly taken .Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 1881.Complaint remitted back .Complaint signed by power of attorney holder .Managing Director and Joint Managing Director By virtue of the office they hold. Section 138. 142(b)-. Ranga).) #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. a proprietary concern of Mr. (M/s.). Section 138.Power of attorney given by one of the Directors .141 of the Act .138 of the Act . Section 138. describing himself as the sole proprietor of the `payee'.C.CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Delay . 1881.). 142-. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.Dishonour of cheque . (ii) The proprietary concern.Accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 844 (RAJASTHAN) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. Vs State of U. (S.Held.Complaint must be filed by a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 142-. 142-.On such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed.Proprietorship concern . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.. complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) . 142-.Power of attorney holder . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS) #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT . 141. averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S. 1881.Ltd. Section 138. 1881. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr. Section 138. 1881.). 142-.P. complaint can be filed by payee through power of attorney holder and there is no necessity for the complainant to file the complaint in person. Section 138. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.Dishonour of cheque .Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Power of attorney holder . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Company .Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge.Dishonour of cheque . & Ors.Dishonour of cheque .Notice .. Section 138.Dishonour of cheque .Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is personally aware of the transactions. 1881.Proprietorship concern ..P.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Held.No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque . (M/s.. sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ.Rajaram Vs S. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.one lakh .Held.Company .Filed by power of attorney holder . describing itself as a sole proprietary concern. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt. 142-..) #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Rishabh Nath & Ors. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138.Complaint silent as to first notice .President on behalf of Society can file complaint. (1) ABC. 1881..Complaint .Sworn statement of attorney holder ..Proprietorship concern .Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern.Company .No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant . 142-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H) #14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan).Proprietorship concerned .Stake quite heavy ..Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 142-. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-. and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor.) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint can be filing by describing viz.C..Complaint u/s 138 of the Act .Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company .Reason stated negotiations were going on . Section 138. sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ. (M/s. 142-.S.Seenivasan).). 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. represented by its sole proprietor.Delay condoned. 1881.). (M/s.).Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.In a criminal complaint u/s.Summoning order quashed.).Ltd.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.).138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself.Condonation Delay of thirteen months . Section 138. 1881. a sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC.Dishonour of cheque .C.Dishonour of cheque . (M/s.Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the matter in the presence of Ex-President of Kammavar Sangam . and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee.Dishonour of cheque .Two notices served . Section 138. 142-.DEF.Co-operative Society . Section 138.Complaint u/s. (M/s.Insertion of proviso to S. on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed.142(b) Proviso inserted by Act 55 of 2002 is not applicable to pending complaints which is prospective in nature and is not intended to operate retrospectively.).) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Anil Kumar Goel Vs Kishan Chand Kaura).Negotiable Instruments Act.). 142-. Section 142-. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr. Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev.J.Summoning order quashed .) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C.. Section 138.). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.) : 2008 AIR SCW 295 : 2008(1) RCR(CRL. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.Proviso to S.Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant.Dishonour of cheque .S. 142.Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors .Complaint .Complaint .Issuance of process Provision of S. Section 138.L. Section 138. 138.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (S. if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period.C.Matter remitted for reconsideration. complaint is duly filed by the payee. Section 138.C. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Summoning order on basis of Affidavit .Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by proprietor .2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM. 138.Dishonour of cheque . Section 142-.Ltd. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 142(b)-. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.Cognizance wrongly taken .It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period.Time barred complaint .) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. applies.Company . 145-.Power of Attorney holder . 142-.). (Maharaja Developers & Anr.142(b) of the Act as inserted in 2002 is not retrospective in operation.Cannot be condoned without notice to accused.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S. 1881.Dishonour of cheque ..Dishonour of cheque .Delay .Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..).. Ltd.200 Cr. Section 138.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Amendment in provision of S.). (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. Section 138.Complaint quashed . 1881.C..Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque ..Proprietorship concern .Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Held.Shah & Anr.Proviso . 142(b)-.142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay .2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM..Held.C.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 251 (S. 142-. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases.Limitation . (T.Complaint .).Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI. 142(a)-. Vs M/s.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act..Dishonour of cheque .Complaint beyond period of limitation Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause ..C.C.Filing of complaint after period of limitation .Delay in filing complaint .C.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . 1881.). (Subodh S. 142. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.Complaint . (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.. 142-.).Complaint by one of its Directors .Accused discharged.Condonation . 1881..Dishonour of cheque . 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 105 (S. 1881. Section 138.P.). Section 138. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #19: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Corp. insertion of the . (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr.Complaint . (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr.I. 1881.L. 1881.J. & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Delay . 145-. 1881.) 290 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 357 : AIR 2008 SC 899 : 2008 CRILJ 1386 : 2008 AIRSCW 295 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 144 : 2007(14) SCALE 179 #1: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Bangalore & Ors. 1881. 142-.Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of attorney holder . 1881. Vs Shanthi Group.Dishonour of cheque .However. 138.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint must be filed by a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. 1881. . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice .).ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr. 142(b)-.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.)..Ranga). 142-. 1881.Complaint silent as to first notice .P.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Hegde). 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.. 1881. 138. complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) .) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . a proprietary concern of Mr. represented by its sole proprietor. 1881. 142-.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs State of U.Condonation . 142-.C.Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr. and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ..138 of the Act . 142-. & Anr.Complaint .). averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.Summoning order quashed.. 142-. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt. (M/s.. 142(b)-.).Dishonour of cheque . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.. 138.Dishonour of cheque .Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .proviso is not retrospective in nature.Held.). 138.Power of attorney holder .Proprietorship concern . 142-.).Delay .P. 142-. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U. (Subodh S.Two notices served .Dishonour of cheque .On such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed.President on behalf of Society can file complaint..DEF. 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Sworn statement of attorney holder . describing himself as the sole proprietor of the `payee'. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.Held.S. (M/s. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.Dishonour of cheque .P. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Company . (1) ABC.Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge. 138.Complaint signed by power of attorney holder . 1881.Proprietorship concern . (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.13 days delay .Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Summoning order set aside . 138. 138. 138.Co-operative Society ..Complaint u/s 138 of the Act .C.Filed by power of attorney holder Power of attorney given by one of the Directors .Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.Delay condoned. 1881.Complaint can be filing by describing viz.In a criminal complaint u/s. 141.C.Supported by an affidavit . a sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC. (P. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.) #12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint u/s. 142-.141 of the Act . 138. 1881. 138.Ltd. (M/s. (M/s. (M/s.) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (ii) The proprietary concern. 142-..Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is personally aware of the transactions.C.Company .).Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H) .Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. & Ors. 138. describing itself as a sole proprietary concern.Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company .C.Complaint remitted back .P.Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .Proprietorship concerned .Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed .Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.Rishabh Nath & Ors. 1881. and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee.Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course . 1881..Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint.No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant .).Dishonour of cheque . sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ.Proprietorship concern .Shah & Anr.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself.Dishonour of cheque .C.C..S.).No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Complaint quashed .Held. if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period.). (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.J. (M/s.Proviso .. Bangalore & Ors.Dishonour of cheque ..Complaint by one of its Directors . Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev. 142.Complaint beyond period of limitation . Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.).Time barred complaint .Dishonour of cheque .J...Proprietorship concern . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 844 (RAJASTHAN) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. complaint can be filed by payee through power of attorney holder and there is no necessity for the complainant to file the complaint in person. 1881. 142-. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. 142-. complaint is duly filed by the payee.Held. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.Seenivasan).Complaint . on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases. 138. 1881.Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors .Matter remitted for reconsideration.. 138. 142(b)-.Complaint .C.P. 142.Dishonour of cheque . Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.).200 Cr. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.Power of attorney holder . 138.).).L.Stake quite heavy .). 142-. 138.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Accused borrowed a sum of Rs. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI. 1881.Delay of thirteen months .C. (Maharaja Developers & Anr.Complaint . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS) #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.I.142(b) of the Act as inserted in 2002 is not retrospective in operation.one lakh . 138. (Subodh S.Dishonour of cheque .Provision of S. 138.Company . 1881.Rajaram Vs S. applies.Ltd. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. & Anr.C.Complaint .2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM. 142(a)-. Vs Shanthi Group. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #19: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Eastern Roadways Pvt. 138.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Delay . 138.Filing of complaint after period of limitation .Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of attorney holder .#14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.Proviso to S.. 142-. (Maharaja Developers & Anr.Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the matter in the presence of Ex-President of Kammavar Sangam .Cannot be condoned without notice to accused.Complaint . 1881.Condonation .) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Limitation . 142-.. Vs M/s. 142-. 1881.).Held.Power of Attorney holder .Delay . 1881.). 1881.Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant ..Issuance of process . (T.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by proprietor .Company .C.Reason stated negotiations were going on .Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan). (S.Summoning order on basis of Affidavit . Corp. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt..Dishonour of cheque .) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Delay condoned.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M..L. 145-. 138.Dishonour of cheque .). 142-. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr..It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period.Shah & Anr. 145-. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Summoning order quashed . 142-. 1881.Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant.Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause . 1881. 138. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .C.. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Amendment in provision of S. 138. 1881. 142-.Delay .). 142-. (M/s..) : 2008 AIR SCW 295 : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.Dishonour of cheque . (M/s.Complaint u/s. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.).142(b) Proviso inserted by Act 55 of 2002 is not applicable to pending complaints which is prospective in nature and is not intended to operate retrospectively.).Dishonour of cheque .Hegde).Delay . (1) ABC. insertion of the proviso is not retrospective in nature.) #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.).). 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S. (ii) The proprietary concern. sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ. (M/s..Dishonour of cheque .Ltd.P..Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 138. describing himself as the sole proprietor of the `payee'.Delay in filing complaint .Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is personally aware of the transactions. 142-. and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee..However.) 290 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 357 : AIR 2008 SC 899 : 2008 CRILJ 1386 : 2008 AIRSCW 295 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 144 : 2007(14) SCALE 179 #1: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint . 1881. 138.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S..Summoning order set aside . represented by its sole proprietor. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 251 (S.Complaint .).Condonation .Notice .Ltd. 1881. 142-. 142-.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (S.Company .). 1881. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-.Complaint u/s 138 of the Act . (Amit Yadav Vs State of U. 142(b)-. 138. 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #5: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 1881.Insertion of proviso to S. 1881.Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint.Filed by power of attorney holder Power of attorney given by one of the Directors .Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course .) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors..C. 1881.C. 142(b)-.Rishabh Nath & Ors. 142-.Sworn statement of attorney holder .Two notices served . 138. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.DEF. and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor.Complaint silent as to first notice .Complaint must be filed by a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company. 138.) ..Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.In a criminal complaint u/s.P. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.Dishonour of cheque .Proprietorship concern .Dishonour of cheque .Complaint can be filing by describing viz.). 138.) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint remitted back . sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.C. & Anr.Proprietorship concern .). 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Delay condoned.Held. complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) .Power of attorney holder .C. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr. 1881. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.S.Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.C.Cognizance wrongly taken . 138. 1881.C.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.C. 138. describing itself as a sole proprietary concern....C.Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern. (M/s.Shah & Anr.. a proprietary concern of Mr.Accused discharged.C. Vs State of U. a sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC. 1881..138 of the Act .Condonation .C.On such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-.Complaint signed by power of attorney holder .Company .Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr. (Subodh S.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 105 (S. (M/s.Proprietorship concern . (P. 142(b)-.).Supported by an affidavit .Dishonour of cheque .142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay .Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed .P. (Anil Kumar Goel Vs Kishan Chand Kaura).ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr.Dishonour of cheque .13 days delay . 1881.Proprietorship concerned .S. .Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay . 200 Cr.. 1881. 1881. 138.Delay condoned. & Anr. 1881.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U.Cannot be condoned without notice to accused. if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period. 138.Delay . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H) #14: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Summoning order on basis of Affidavit . 138. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr.. 142-.Delay of thirteen months .It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. 138. 142-.Held.I.Held. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr. Vs M/s.Co-operative Society .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 145-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR.C.). 142-. 1881.).. 138. Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev.L. Corp.L.S.Complaint . 138. 142(a)-.Complaint . 142.Company . 142-.Issuance of process .Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.141 of the Act .Dishonour of cheque ... 138.Complaint .#12: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S. 1881. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.Rajaram Vs S.J.P. (S. & Ors.Dishonour of cheque . 142-. 145-.Condonation ..Complaint beyond period of limitation . 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI. 1881. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #21: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Stake quite heavy . 1881.Company . (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt. 138. (Maharaja Developers & Anr.Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause . (Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan). 142.Summoning order quashed .). 142-. 1881.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint .Held.. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 844 (RAJASTHAN) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .).Dishonour of cheque . (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.Summoning order quashed..No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant . Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr. 142(b)-.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 .Provision of S.Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant.). 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the matter in the presence of Ex-President of Kammavar Sangam . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #22: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Bangalore & Ors. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A.Reason stated negotiations were going on . 138. 141. Ltd..Ltd.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.Dishonour of cheque .Limitation .Dishonour of cheque .No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #19: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company .Ranga).one lakh .P. complaint can be filed by payee through power of attorney holder and there is no necessity for the complainant to file the complaint in person..) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #17: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Amendment in provision of S.Seenivasan).J.Power of attorney holder .Complaint .).Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS) #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Complaint by one of its Directors .Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant . (T. Vs Shanthi Group.Delay . applies.142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases.President on behalf of Society can file complaint. 138. on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed.Eastern Roadways Pvt.Filing of complaint after period of limitation . 138. 1881.Matter remitted for reconsideration.Company .C.). 142-. Union List.C.Proviso to S. 142-. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Case taken up in absence of parties or their counsel as it was declared holiday . 142-.Cannot be said that complainant failed to appear .Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of attorney holder . 142-. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (A. (Anil Kumar Goel Vs Kishan Chand Kaura). 1881.Proviso .Six months period shall be calculated from the date which the cheque bears.Gramaphone Records and Tapes (India) Ltd.Held.Held. 138. (Subodh S.Preetha Vs Panyam Cements & Mineral Industries Limited & Anr. 138.S.Dishonour of cheque .Preetha Vs Panyam Cements & Mineral Industries Limited & Anr. (P.. 138.P. Section 142(a)-.S.To be made in writing . 1881. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (P&H) : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881.P. Promissory Notes and other like instruments' .) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (S. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A. 1881.Correctness of defence plea in reply notice to be considered only at the trial and not at the time of taking cognizance of offence-Defence theory available in documents filed need not be mentioned in complaint. complaint is duly filed by the payee.Dismissed for default .P.Company .) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0014 #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonoured Company filed complaint through its authorised representative .). (M/s. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.Power of Attorney holder . 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 838 (KERALA) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0074 : 1991 (2) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0033 : 1992 (73) COMP.C.) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0014 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 142(a)-. 1881.Returned for curing the defect .) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S.P.Complaint shall be deemed to be presented only when it is represented by signing it .C.Complaint is maintainable. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 46 .Dishonour of cheque . 142-.) : 2008 AIR SCW 295 : 2008(1) RCR(CRL..) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0014 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (A. on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed. (P. Cheques.) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Moudgil Carpets & Rugs & Ors.Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 558 (A.Case restored.Cheque in favour of a Limited Company .Dishonour of cheque .) 290 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 357 : AIR 2008 SC 899 : 2008 CRILJ 1386 : 2008 AIRSCW 295 : 2008(2) AIRKARR 144 : 2007(14) SCALE 179 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors .Complaint .). 141.) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.142(b) of the Act as inserted in 2002 is not retrospective in operation.Complaint to be returned to be represented by curing the defect .Kiran Vs L.Complaint without signatures of complainant . & Anr. (Umesh Kumar Vs M/s.Corporation).B. 139.)...) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 558 (A.Without signatures of complainant . 1881. (P. 138.Proprietorship concern .138 and 142 . (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt.Complaint .Preetha Vs Panyam Cements & Mineral Industries Limited & Anr.Cannot be treated as a 'Complaint made in writing by the payee'. 142(a)-. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (A. 142-..) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 251 (S. Ltd. 138. 142-.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors.Words `Banking. (S.) 0160 : 1991(2) KLT 0265 #3: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Constitution of India.).Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 105 (S.P) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 558 (A. Seventh Schedule.C. Section 142(a)-. 140.If by that time limitation has expired then complaint is barred by limitation.Order set aside .Court can take cognizance of offence if allegations In complaint show that complainant has complied with provisions of Ss..#23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.P. Section 142(a)-.Notice not issued to the parties .Complaint quashed .Time barred complaint . Vs Noorudeen).Presentation of complaint shall be deemed to be presentation when it is represented by curing the defect.Complaint by one of its Directors .C.Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by proprietor . 1881.C.Occurring . 1881.) 0357 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0683 : 1993 (3) SLJ 2827 #3: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (C.). CASES 0494 : 1992 BJ 0522 : 1992 (2) MWN (CRL.Private complaint be made .). 1881.Post dated cheque .Dishonour of cheque . (M/s.Shah & Anr.142(b) Proviso inserted by Act 55 of 2002 is not applicable to pending complaints which is prospective in nature and is not intended to operate retrospectively. 1881. Entries 45.Defective complaint not liable to be thrown out automatically .).A defective complaint ... Bills of Exchange. Section 138.)..Complaint without signatures of complainant ..P...Aildas & Company & Ors. Vs M/s. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.Proper for trial court to have adjourned the case for giving notice . 138. 1751 : 1993(6) OCR 242 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-. CASES 0381 : 1990 DRJ 0029 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. CASES 0565 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0434 : 1994 CRL.Dishonour of cheque . Vs M/s.. 142-. 1881.Pushpa Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Sharma).138 not fulfilled .).).) 0343 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0036 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0221 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0215 : 1992 (73) COMP.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude . 142-.. 1881.Cheque .) 0604 : 1993 MWN 0140 . 142-.J.Non mention of defence theory in complaint not a ground for entertaining such application-It is not for High Court to go into rival contentions ...C. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A. 1866 : ILR 1991 (KAR) 0612 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors.Judicial First Class Magistrate). 138.A power of attorney holder of a payee or a holder in due course can make a complaint u/s 142 of the Act.J. (Mohinder Singh Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors. (Maheshwari Proteins Ltd.. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. S.Held.. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0650 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.Arises only on the expiry of 15 days notice period .) 0235 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0080 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0019 : 1994 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL.It can also be the place where the cheque was issued or delivered .C.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.J. CASES 0560 : 1992 BJ 0520 : 1991 (2) CRIMES 0093 : 1991 CRL.Jurisdiction . 142-.Complaint should contain allegations of the ingredients of the offence.) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL.P) #13: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1993 (SUPPL. 142-. CASES 0045 : 1994 CRL.Complaint and summoning order quashed.. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0722 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0314 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0159 : 1997 (88) COMP. (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors.Application u/s482 can be entertained by the High Court only if prima facie case is not made out on the allegations in complaint . 0543 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL. 138. (Janardhan Mohapatra Vs Saroj Kumar Choudhry). 142-. (Playwood House Vs Wood Craft Products Ltd. CASES 0549 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509 #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .) 0311 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0182 : 1997 (88) COMP. CASES 0800 : 1994(1) CRIMES 0395 : ILR 1994 (1) KERALA 0622 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. 138.Delay in filing complaint . Vs State of Karnataka). 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (DELHI) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0142 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. L. 1881. Vs State-Delhi Administration).P. L.) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0572 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. (Smt.Mohan & Anr.Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment and that can be the place where the Bank to which the cheque was issued is located . 1973.138 of the act. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 384 (P&H) : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL.Essential requirements of clause (b) & (c) of the proviso to S.). 138. 1881.Complaint and the summoning order quashed.Police cannot entertain a complaint under Sections 3 & 5 Cr.482) (Mohammed Rasheed Vs State of Kerala).Holder of cheque has to file a complaint before Magistrate. 1881. L.Delay can be condoned. 142-. 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0237 : 1991 (3) RCR (CRL.Inherent power cannot be invoked to quash proceedings on complaint requiring enquiry and trial.Cause of action .Firm which issued the cheques not made an accused in the complaint Can be impleaded even after the expiry of the period of one month from the date of cause of action envisaged in S.).J. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL. (M/s. Vs Union of India & Ors..Complaint filed before this period is not maintainable. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0125 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL.. (Hamsa Vs Ibrahim). (Cr.) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0135 : 1993 (82) COMP. CASES 0753 : 1993 (1) KLT 0717 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Madhavan Vs Addl.Jurisdiction . 1881. 1881. 1881. 1881.Neither Ingredients of the offence spelled out nor disclosed as to how the court at place `M' has jurisdiction . Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.) 0329 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0030 : 1997 (89) COMP. 1881.P. 138. L. 142-.The Court within whose jurisdiction any of the above said places falls has got jurisdiction to try the offence.. 138. 0674 : 1993 (2) KLT 1027 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0763 #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Aildas & Company & Ors.Complaint filed-Quashing of-such complaints are cognizable by Courts of competent jurisdiction .) 0258 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. 142-.in Entries Nos. .. (H.Dishonour . Service of notice is essential to constitution the offence.) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL.Notice .Continuing offence from 16th day of receipt of demand by drawer if amount remains unpaid . 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881. 138.Dishonour of cheque -Complaint filed within limitation .No offence is made out .Repeated.Mere dishonour of cheque does not constitute offence under Section 138 .Fine .Duraisamy).) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP.Cheque when presented more than one time . (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti). 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278 #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Period of limitation for filing complaint be taken Into consideration from last date of dishonour and not from first date of dishonour.J. L. i. (M/S..1996 (SUPP.138.) 0816 : 1998 CRL. 142-. 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 680 (A.Court can take cognizance only when cheque is dishonoured either due to inadequacy of funds or due to the amount exceeding the limit. 138. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales). 142-.B. (M/s.Embee Textiles Limited & Anr.Complaint returned for some omission and Court did not specify time for compliance of that omission . CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors.).Limitation . 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A. Vs Sadhu Ram & Co. 142-. 138. 1881. 1881. 1997 (SUPPL. 0597 : 1991 (2) ALT (CRL. there is absolutely no justification for the High Court to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr.Cause of action would arise if no payment is made by the drawer within 15 days of receipt of notice .) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL.Aildas & Company & Ors.Dishonour of cheque . L..P.Primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint .Cheque dishonoured .Notice not issued Cheque presented again . 138.. (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co.Payee has to give notice to drawer within 15 days of receipt of information from Bank demanding payment . 142-.). Vs M/s.Magistrate of the first class is empowered to impose a fine exceeding Rs.Jurisdiction .Cheque can be presented to Bank for collection any number of times during its validity and last dishonour could be treated as cause of action to serve notice on drawer and file complaint under Section 138 .B. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.Dishonoured . the place where the bank is located or the place where the cheque was issued or delivered Court within whose jurisdiction any of such place falls has jurisdiction to try the offence.Complaint complying with all the ingredients of Ss. L. (Muraleedharan Vs Pareed).. 138 & 142 . 142-. 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (MADRAS) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0863 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0654 : 1998 (93) COMP.Dishonour of cheque .P. 1881..) 0457 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881.Dishonour of cheques . 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.5. 1997(2) CIVIL .Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of money. CASES 0339 : 1991 (3) CRIMES 0832 : 1992 CRL. 138. 1881. (D.J.P) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.e.) 0146 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0201 : 1993 (76) COMP.138 of the Act. 1993 (SUPPL.Held. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #2: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act...) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (P&H) : 1990 .No illegality . multiple or successive complaints in respect of same cheque ..Dishonour of cheque . 1881.) 0816 : 1998 CRL.#15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). Vs State of Andhra Pradesh). 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1992(1) KLT 59 #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J.J. 138.) 0349 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0068 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0394 #20: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP.Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds . 1881..However. 142 is sine qua non for institution of complaint.J. 142-.). CASES 0538 : 1996 BJ 0240 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0457 : 1995 (4) CCR 0119 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint is maintainable. 142-.. if once payee sends notice demanding payment from drawer of cheque then he loses his right to present the cheque again to Bank. 142-. (Sahadevan Vs Sreedharan).Cheque .Ramamoorthy Vs K. 000/-for offence u/s. 138.`Payment stopped by drawer' . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .. 138. (Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad & Ors.But only one complaint is maintainable . (G.Complaint if represented after limitation cannot be held to be barred. 142-. 138.Not permissible. 142-. 138. 1881. 142-.) ISJ (BANKING) 0727 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL. (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co. 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.).Fulfilment of these ingredients under Ss. 1881.Held.A.Court at place `T' has jurisdiction.attomey holder Power . CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. 142-. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (P&H) #14: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0798 : 1997 (88) COMP. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales)..Cheque issued drawn on Bank at place `S' . 141.No illegality .of .Complaint u/s 138 quashed. 138.Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates). (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.If such an application is made.Agreement to sell .Principal is liable as the principal is always bound by the act of his or her attorney so long the attorney does not exceed his right . 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #10: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #7: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-.Held. (Sova Mukherjee Vs Rajiv Mehra). (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti). 142-.Held..Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates). CASES 0544 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0557 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 142-.COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.Parties agreeing to cancel the agreement and refund the amount received ..200 . 1881. 1881..In the instant case no material is on record to hold that attorney acted beyond his power .Date given in notice which has been exhibited . 138. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 278 (MADRAS) : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0467 #15: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881. 142-. 142-. 142-.Company .Cheque dishonoured . (P. CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL.A. 138. 142-. 1881.. 142-. 142-. 138.Complaint . complaint is maintainable.Can be presented any number of times within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity.of . 1881. L. 138. (Rahmathullah Vs Ramalingam). 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 68 (P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Court may pass necessary orders giving notice to the complainant.Cheque .Agreement denied by the complainant .company and the accused persons .Cheque .Complaint filed at place `T' where transaction creating liability had taken place .Jurisdiction .Defect is.. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881.Three cheques issued . 1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.Cheque drawn on bank at place `M' and cheque presented for collection at place `M' . it is open to the accused to make it clear by filing application fixing responsibility . 142-. complaint cannot be quashed.Cheque presented for collection at place `J' .Cheque issued by the attorney .Held.attorney executed in favour of Accounts Officer of the Company .Cause of action arises only on issuance of notice and non payment within 15 days . 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP.Quashing of complaint declined as these are disputed facts and the petitioner/accused may approach the Court at Amritsar for dropping proceedings.He is the person who is having the full knowledge of the transactions of the Company and he is the right person to speak about the transactions that had taken place between the complainant .) 0688 #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). however curable.When notice is issued and payment is not made offence stands committed once for all and complaint has to be filed within a month from the date on which cause of action accrued. . 138.It is violative of S. (Hardip Singh Vs Gurnam Singh Randhawa). (P. 138..Claim satisfied as the amount stood paid . L.Jurisdiction . 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (CALCUTTA) : 1996(3) ALL INDIA CRI LR 558 : 1997(2) CCR 313 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 480 : 1998(2) REC CIR R 474 #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. cheques were issued at Delhi and parties had agreed that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction . which ever is earlier .J..All the directors arrayed as accused ..Held. there is no deficiency in complaint.Jurisdiction .Complainant not examined on oath by Magistrate but allowed the Advocate to examine him . 138. 1881..Presented at Amritsar and dishonoured . courts at place `J' has jurisdiction to try the offence. 138.Company .Payee or any person authorised by the payee can make a complaint. (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.). 138.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP. 1997 (SUPPL. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL.J. 141. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Ishwari Devi Vs State of Punjab).Dishonour of cheque .Date of return of cheque by Bank not mentioned in complaint .Non payment of the balance amount in time .) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. 1881..Dishonoured .Jurisdiction of Court at Amritsar challenged an the plea that property is situated at Delhi.Complaint filed by power . ) 0337 : 1997(1) MAD LW (CRI) 337 #19: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881. 142-. (Lakshmanan Vs Sivarama Krishnan).J. 141. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held. (Aruna Bai Vs Surendra Babu).) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. CASES 0452 : 1996 BJ 0045 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. 1963.Mohan Krishna & Ors.6.P.If the notice is dispatched on 13.1992 received on 25.) 0510 . 142-.5. 142-.Notice Dt. Limitation Act.10.P. S.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL.) 0420 : 1995 AIHC 2962 : 1995(1) KLT 350 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.) (B. CASES 0610 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0019 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.B.Dishonour of cheque . 142-. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.6 . 1973. 138. 1881.5. (Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs K.1992..4..1992 . (M/s.4.It is open to the payee or holder in due course to present the cheque for payment even after his failure to file a complaint on the basis of the first cause of action accrued to him.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.1992 .Complaint is maintainable . complaint is tiled within time as cause of action to tile the complaint arose on 9. 142-. 138. 138.can be imposed by Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate if situation so warrants even if the power of court to impose fine is limited only upto Rs. Vs Union of India & Ors. 138.A complaint filed beyond one month of the date on which the cause of action has arisen is barred and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint.P. CASES 0147 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1086 : 1994 (56) DLT 0066 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cause of action accrues only on failure to make the payment within fifteen days of the service of notice.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A. CASES 0806 : 1994 (4) CCR 2374 : 1994 (1) LW (CRL.Can neither be extended u/s 473 Cr.Chahal Engg.Payee or holder in due course can only file a complaint. 1881.Mohan Krishna & Ors.. 1881.B. (Konark Cables Vs Premier Engineering & Electricals)..) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0513 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0582 : 1996 BJ 0234 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0538 : 1995 CRL.Limitation . Vs M/s.437.Notice sent on 23. (Kunhimuhammed Vs Khadeeja)..C.Fine in excess of Rs. L. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL. 138. 000/.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of ListI (Union List. L.S. at the stage of deciding whether process is to be issued or not Magistrate is not required to assess the material on record minutely High Court cannot quash the proceedings on this ground. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. 138.P.).5).) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 1881.) 0716 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0019 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0145 : 1998 (92) COMP. 142-.Cheque dishonoured for the second time . (B.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Union of India & Ors.. 138..1992 .C.by S.5. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti).Cheque can be presented any number of times within its period of validity or within a period of six months from the date of issuance and on each occasion when the cheque is dishonoured the petitioner gets a fresh cause of action to file complaint and the limitation would be computed from that point of time. LJ 1384 (KER.Selvamani). L. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0145 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0845 #25: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. S. 142-.J. 1881. 1881.). 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (KERALA) : 1995(1) KLT 259 : 1995 CRL. 000/.Complaint tiled on 3.5. 138.Dishonour of cheque . 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.. 140. (Cr. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #18: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions .) #22: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.1992 then it is beyond 15 days of intimation of dishonour .(Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti). & Construction Ltd.6.C.) (D. L.On the acknowledgement date mentioned as 13.Verma Plywood Company). 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 118 (MADRAS) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0291 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0334 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0347 : 1995 (86) COMP.P. 1904 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL. 142-.. L. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (DELHI) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0435 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. 139.Matters covered by S. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL.Complaint filed on that basis . nor the delay condoned u/s 5 of the Limitation Act .J.) (D.P.Dishonour of cheque .29 Cr.Held. 138.Chapter XVII consisting of Ss. 1881.) 0412 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0092 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0409 : 1995 (82) COMP.6.J.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 291 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0528 : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.J. 142-. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (KERALA) : 1995(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0125 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL.1992 and the complaint has to be tiled within one month from 10. L.C. complaint filed is within time as 15 days notice period expired on 14th October and cause of action for filing complaint would arise from 15th October as such 15th October is to be excluded for counting the period of one month.3.. L. CASES 0013 : 1999 CRI LJ 1219 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 3372 #3: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .9. 142-.Complaint filed on 8. has also got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 506 (S.) 0383 : 1999 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (M. 142-.Day on which cause of action arises is to be excluded . 142-. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 674 (A. (Premlata Chaddha Vs Surendra Kumar Soni).) ISJ (BANKING) 0218 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (M.Computing period of limitation . CASES 0481 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0532 #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.At stage of issuing process. 138.4.) 0211 : 1999 (97) COMP.P.) 0407 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0122 : 1999 (96) COMP. 142-.J. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. 138.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0486 : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 1881. L. 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 45 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0441 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Power of attorney . (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers). 141.. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998 (2) KLT 0490 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1998 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1999 SCC (CRI) 329 : 1999(3) SCC 1 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Steel Authority of India.P. L. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (GUJARAT) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (GUJARAT) 0177 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0210 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. 138. (G. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (A.Dishonour of cheque .Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was presented for encashment.No complaint filed .P. hence quashed..1998 .In the instant case it is clear from the material on record that there was sufficient material to proceed against the persons who were declined to be summoned . 138.Drawee competent to prosecute under S. not necessary to go in detailed discussion of merits or demerits of case .). 142-.Notice given on 26.1995 .Dishonour of cheque . 138. 1348 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.J.1995 and complaint filed on 15.Dishonour of cheque .Delay in filing complaint .) 0156 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. 142-.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. 138.Pleading .C. (M/s Saketh India Ltd.5.Cheque dishonoured .Held. L.Absence of averment in complaint that cheque was issued towards the discharge of whole or any part of debt or any liability . 142-. 138. without authorisation a Director or any similarly situated person cannot maintain a complaint.#1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Authority letter did not state that payee would be bound by the acts of her husband .Company .Payee authorising her husband through a letter to file complaint on her behalf .) 0018 : 1997 APLJ (CRL.Cheque again presented on request of accused .P. 138.) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 1881.) 0049 : 1997 (2) CUR CRI R 0793 : 1997 (2) ANDH LD 0738 : 1996 (2) LS AP 0532 #10: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. & Ors..) 0040 : 1999 CRL.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP.P. (Pallavi Traders Vs Petro Lubes).) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Complaint not property instituted. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A. Vs M/s India Securities Ltd. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL..J. 1881.).11. if the complaint and its accompaniments prima facie show the ingredients of S.) 0486 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0104 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. Ghaziabad Vs Harbhajan Singh & Ors. (Anchor Capitals of India Ltd.P. 1881. CASES 0123 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0545 : 1997 CRL..) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL..Jurisdiction . 1881.) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL.P.138 on second dishonour. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S. 142-.C. 1881.Held.Magistrate summoning some accused persons and declining to summon others . CASES 0462 : 1999(3) CRIMES 621 (P&H) #6: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.In the instant case notice served on accused on 29. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.J.138 of the Act then the complaint cannot be thrown or quashed at the threshold. 3657 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0054 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Held..) 0597 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0604 : 1999 (96) COMP.Cannot be condoned u/s 5 Limitation Act Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed beyond one month from the date of accrual of cause of action.Cause of action arose on 11.) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP. 1881.Held. & Anr.Limitation . 142-. 138. 138.C.Not barred by limitation.Can be presented any number of times during period of its .Impugned order of Magistrate wholly illegal and not at all sustainable. (Meeta Rai Vs Gulshan Mahajan).Notice issued ..Complaint . (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani). 1881.) 0725 : 1998 CRL.Complaint by Director .Venkataramanaiah Vs Sillakollu Venkateswarlu & Anr.Validity . authority letter could not be equated with General or Special Power of Attorney .) : 1999 2001 (SUPP.P. 1881.J.1998 . 142(b)-.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.).) #9: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263 #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0455 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0609 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.1998 .Cheque again dishonoured . Complaint cannot be lodged thereafter .) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0079 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0045 : 1997 (89) COMP.Complaint is not maintainable as the payee as lost every right over the cheque by endorsing the same in favour of third party. 3553 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint against wife quashed .. regarding limitation not applicable. 2402 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Criminal case is not to be stayed till disposal of suit on the ground that unconditional leave to defend the suit is granted.Condonation . 142-.Arises only on failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice .Limitation to file complaint is one month from accrual of cause of action .J. . 1881. 1881.Provisions of Ss.First day of receipt of notice has to be .P.. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. 138. L. (Mandhadi Ramachandra Reddy Vs Gopume Reddy Ram Reddy).Dishonoured . (Ponnappan Vs Sibi).C. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998(2) CTC 462 : 1998 (2) KLT 0765 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1988 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1998(6) SCC 514 : 1998 SCC(CRI.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0172 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0075 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.Cause of action . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. 142-..) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL.Cheque dishonoured Complaint filed by original payee .Dishonour of cheque . 142-. CASES 0223 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0543 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0058 #13: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 138.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. 1881.Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days is not maintainable.J. 138.validity . 138. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 487 (A.468).) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran).Complaint and civil suit pending .468 Cr.P. L.Court cannot condone delay as the very jurisdiction of Court to take cognizance is barred .Delay .P.) 0678 #20: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 695 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0535 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Kalegouda Vs K. (Subhash Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan).C.C. 1881.This being a special provision.. 1881.Each presentation and dishonour does not give rise to fresh cause of action but only a fresh right .) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (BOMBAY) #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran).) 0086 #12: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.) : 1998(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 267 (S..J. 142-. (C. 138. 138. (Saral Enterprises Vs Ashok Thaper). 4275 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL.Cause of action for initiation of prosecution arises only once that is on failure to pay money by drawer after demand notice .Aggarwal Vs Rakesh Aggarwal).Once notice under Section 138 is issued and drawee fails to initiate prosecution within time the right to initiate proceedings u/s 138 will be forfeited .Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is dishonoured has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 142-.Limitation . CASES 0423 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0293 : 1998 CRL. CASES 0571 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0151 : 1997 CRL..Cheque .) 0398 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0168 : 1998 (93) COMP. 1997 (SUPPL.15 days period . 142-. the general provisions of S.J.Notice . 142-. 142-. (G. 138. 138.J.) 0077 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0238 : 1998 CRL.Complaint to be filed within period of limitation prescribed u/s 142 . 3553 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. CASES 0531 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.Cannot be condoned under any provision of law Period prescribed under the Act is not the period as such. 3539 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL. L. 138.200 Cr.J.Provision contemplates punishment only against the drawer of the cheque but not others. 142-. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S. 1881. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0010 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0438 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL..Cheque endorsed in favour of a third party .P. (Criminal Procedure Code.) 0788 : 1998 (91) COMP.) 1471 : 1998(2) JCC 91 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Limitation .Cheque issued by H and dishonoured . (H.Again after fresh presentation of cheque and dishonour and notice thereon prosecution is not permissible.. L. 1881.Adjournment of complaint to some other date to examine the complainant under S.C.Delay .) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.. (Sadanandan Bhadran Vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar).C.Sadashivappa).138 and 142 are special provisions and exclude the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (A.) 0574 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0429 : 1998 (93) COMP.Surya Prabhavathi Vs Nekkanti Subrahmanyeswara Rao).Does not constitute taking cognizance of the offence. L.) 0347 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0018 (SN) #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1973. 142-. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 222 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0703 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0577 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.L. 138. but is a condition precedent as such and that period cannot be extended by any means. S. L.Complaint against H and his wife as the loan was for purchase of car in the name of wife .) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 617 (A. J.Delay . (Amit Yadav Vs State of U.Hegde). (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr..Complaint .) 0725 : 1998 CRL. 142-. . Section 138.Dishonour of cheque . New Delhi . Vs Vinod Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel).No act or negligence attributed to him Complaint qua the petitioner quashed. 1881.S.Cheque dishonoured . 1881.) 0064 #1: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (P.Complaint .). 141..Counter complaint by drawer of cheque u/ss 409. (Raj Kumar Mangla Vs Indo Lowebrau Breweries). 141. (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr. (Aruna Khurana & Ors. IPC alleging that cheque by merely signing it was given whereas name and amount was filled by the payee himself .Dishonour of cheque .Aithala Vs Ganapathy N.P.Condonation . (Rajan George Vs State of Kerala). 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (M. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0181 : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0016 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.Complaint against partners .J.When filed on the last day of limitation by a pleader in the absence of the complainant .Firm not a party ..) 0638 #24: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint cannot be quashed.`Person incharge and responsible' .) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #3: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Delay condoned.excluded.).Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint.Notice issued .Complaint .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR. 142-.) 0486 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0104 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. 138. Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers).Delay in filing complaint Cognizance wrongly taken .No complaint filed Cheque again presented on request of accused .Delay .Proviso .Jurisdiction .Limitation ..Filing of complaint after period of limitation .Condonation 13 days delay .Drawee competent to prosecute under S.Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay . 1881. 142-. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (GUJARAT) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0085 : 1997 (89) COMP.. 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Cheque drawn up at Dena Bank. 1997 (SUPPL. 138. 420 & 463 etc..Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course .Question whether cheque is a forged one cannot be considered in a separate criminal proceeding .Accused discharged.P.Cheque again dishonoured .Quashment of counter complaint sought . Section 142(b)-. Section 138.Counter complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law . Section 138.. 3751 #21: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Proceedings of counter complaint quashed.Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 539 (J&K) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0154 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (J&K) 0456 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0444 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0313 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0519 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.Presented through bank at Chandigarh . 142(b)-. L.It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period. (Sardar Singh Vs Karam Singh).Complaint remitted back . & Anr.Cheque dishonoured . (Meltro Enterprises Vs Ramesh Chander).) 0671 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0501 : 1997 CRL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (P&H) #23: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142(b)-.Supported by an affidavit .P.Court can condone delay on the .138 on second dishonour.) ISJ (BANKING) 0218 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (M. 1881.Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed . 1997 (SUPPL. 1881. 138.Magistrate can accept the complaint. 1881. Bangalore & Ors. 3657 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0054 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1997 (SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 1999 2001 (SUPP. Vs Shanthi Group. 142(b)-.Complaint at Chandigarh is maintaianble. (United India Phosphorous Ltd..Dishonour of cheque .Complaint . 1881. 138.P. 1881. Section 138. 142-. 142(b)-. Section 138.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint signed by power of attorney holder .Summoning order set aside .). 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881..) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0844 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL. (Premlata Chaddha Vs Surendra Kumar Soni).. 142-. L. 142(b)-. CASES 0764 #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.No allegation in the complaint that petitioner was responsible to the company or was incharge of the company . if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period.C. Section 142. 145-.P.Affidavit in support thereof .C.Must be in writing and signed by the complainant.. 142.145 of the Act permits filing of affidavit.Delay Condonation .. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 503 (KERALA) : 2006(1) KLT 131 : ILR 2005(4) KER.P. CASES 0433 : 1997 BJ 0032 : 1996 CRL. 138-. (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala). Vs M/s Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.Kota).A-3 is the Director and authorised signatory and is thus liable for prosecution . Vs M/s Goa Antibiotics & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. itself is not sufficient to hold that the complaint is liable to be rejected. Section 142(b)-.Sufficient cause can be shown in the complaint itself or in the application for condonation of delay or in the affidavit.Amended proviso which gave discretion to Court to condone delay in filing complaint is applicable when case was still pending. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (BOMBAY) #8: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . Section 142(b)-.Condonation of delay . 1881. Section 138. (Panda Leasing & Properties Ltd. (M. Vs M/s Nagarjuna Finance Limited. Court must receive affidavits as evidence at the stage of S.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 : 2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. or in other materials which would be sufficient to satisfy the Court that the complainant had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified period.) 0415 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0667 : 1997 (88) COMP.J.).Permissible by way of affidavit . Shirdi Sai Finance Corporation..Cognizance can be taken relying on affidavit as provision of S. (Gulam Haidar Ali Khan Vs Managing Partner.) #2: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (ORISSA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 597 (ORISSA) : 2006(2) CRIMES 220 (ORISSA) .Dishonour of cheque .Preliminary evidence . 138-. (M/s Jord Engineers India Limited.).A-1 is company and is liable for prosecution . (R.) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 94 : 2006(4) KERLT 33 : 2007(1) RECCIVR 727 #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Just because the complaint does not contain the averment that.Condonation of delay .A detailed inquiry giving opportunity to the parties to adduce oral evidence is not necessary at the stage of taking cognizance to decide whether delay deserves to be condoned under Section 142 of the Act. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 87 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0476 : 1996 (3) RCR (CRL. Section 138... S. 2264 : 1996 (4) CCR 0623 : ILR 1996 KARNATKA 1219 : 1996 (2) KARLJ 0162 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Pleading .. 138-. as such he is liable for prosecution Complaint against A-4 quashed.20(1) of Constitution of India.Unless the case falls within `just exception' contemplated u/s 145 of N.Chawla & Anr.K.Rangappa). 1881.Chawla & Anr. 1881. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (BOMBAY) #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). that Court has jurisdiction.It is not prohibited by Art.P. 1881.Constitutional validity Mere a discretion has been given to Magistrate to consider an application for condonation of delay . (Abdurehiman Vs Sethu Madhavan). 145-. Section 142. can be given on affidavit.A-2 is the Chief Managing Director and Signatory.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. Hyderabad & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .strength of affidavit of complainant and not on the strength of affidavit of counsel.. Mumbai & Ors.Amendment of the proviso . 1881.Limitation .A-4 is the Director but no qualification is attached to A-4 as to what role he has played in the commission of offence and such he is not liable to be prosecuted . 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 265 (A. Act. 1881.C.K.) : 2006(2) DCR 701 : 2006(6) ALJ 700 #3: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.If there is a delay in filing complaint Court should give notice to the respondent and after hearing the respondent Court should satisfy itself as to whether complainant had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the specified period .Complaint . 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (MADRAS) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. Section 142(c)-.P.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 136 (KER. (Abdurehiman Vs Sethu Madhavan). and should not insist on personal appearance and examination of the complainant to give sworn statement. Section 142. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 240 (KERALA) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 136 (KER. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 717 (A.It has not created a new offence but has merely regulated the procedure of taking cognizance by the Magistrate .I. 145-.An application or affidavit in support of application for condonation of delay is not necessary .Dishonour of cheque . 138-.Dishonour of cheque . & Anr.. if any.Initial statement u/s 200 Cr. L.). (R.Proviso . 604 : (2006) 129 COM CAS 465 (KER) : 2006(39) AIC 894 (KER) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.A-5 is a financial controller and he has a definite role to play in the working of the company. Vs Hemant Kumar Moharana).) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 903 (A. 1881.Proviso . 1881.A. hence liable for prosecution .Complaint . Section 138. (Satyanarayana Gowda Vs B. Section 141. & Anr.200 Cr.Complaint against company and its Directors Specific averment is necessary regarding the role played by each of the Directors . (Muraleedharan Vs Sreeram Investment Ltd.Such a regulation of procedure does not change the nature of the offence with which the accused is tried nor does it create new offence .Abdul Khuthoos Vs M/s Ganesh & Coy Oil Mills). 1881.. Shah & Anr.Complaint . 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (BOMBAY) #14: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 145-. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 475 (MADRAS) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 48 (MADRAS) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 75 (M. Vs Vijay J. 142. (Maharaja Developers & Anr.P. Section 145-..Complaint . Section 145.Complaint . if so requires.P. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI. evidence of complainant can be given by him on affidavit and can be read in evidence in any enquiry.). Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. 1881. Section 145-.L.200 Cr.Witness has to be called for cross examination when an application u/s 145(2) is filed .P.There is nothing in the Amending Act to indicate that the provision is intended to apply only prospectively. 1881. applies.L. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 378 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 323 (NOC) : AIR 2006 BOM 920 NOC : 2006(4) AKAR(NOC) 537 : 2006(2) AIRJHAR(NOC) 647 : 2006(3) AIRBOMR 425 : 2006(4) ALLCRILR 466 : 2006 . (Mahendra Kumar Vs Armstrong & Anr.. summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Provisions of Sections 145 and 146 N.J. 138-. & Anr.Dishonour of cheque ..Recording statement of complainant .Provision of S.Criminal Court cannot compel complainant to file proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.. may request Court to call complainant for cross examination. 1881.However. Act are not mandatory in nature and option has been left open for the parties to take recourse to these provisions or to the normal provisions contemplated under the Cr..Court on application of prosecution or accused.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #5: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI. Section 145.Stands substantially dispensed with by insertion of S. 1881. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #8: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 146-. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.C.C. (Subramanian Vs Krishnakumar). Section 145. (Maharaja Developers & Anr.Examination-in-chief of complainant can be given on affidavit .Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.Complaint . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #7: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Affidavit .Accused cannot adduce evidence by examining himself on affidavit.Dishonour of cheque .).145 applies to all complaints pending on the date on which the Amending Act came into force .P. (Thanaiya Vs Balasamy Nadar).Affidavits . 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 145-. 1881. Section 138.#4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. Section 138.. 1881. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.Affidavit of complainant can be filed .For the purpose of issuing process.).). it is open to the discretion of the Judge to put questions to the complainant if he considers it necessary. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta).A close reading of these sections reveal that they relate to post cognizance operation and never treat to the pre-cognizance stages. if necessary. Section 138. Court can allow re-examiantion. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta)..2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.). Section 145-. & Anr.I. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (M.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM. 138-. 1881. 145-. Section 145.).After cross-examination.If once affidavit is given then examination-in-chief need not to be recorded again . 1881.) 3075 #11: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142.).Issuance of process Provision of S.145 in the NI Act .J. Section 145-. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr. trial or other proceeding . 1881.. 146-. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 435 (BOMBAY) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 574 : AIR 2006 NOC 228 (BOM) : 2006(2) ALJ(NOC) 259 : 2006(1) AIRJHAR(NOC) 203 : 2006(1) AIRBOMR 132 : 2006(55) ALLCRIC 7 SOC : 2006(2) ALLCRILR 548 : 2006(41) ALLINDCAS 321 : 2005 ALLMR(CRI) 3007 : 2006 BANKJ 536 : 2006(1) BOMCR(CRI) 81 : 2006(3) CIVLJ 692 : 2006(1) MAHLJ 11 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Accused thereafter.. (Harischandra Biyani Vs Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd.Dishonour of cheque . (M/s Indo International Ltd. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.. (Indraprastha Holdings Ltd. Section 145. New Delhi & Anr.Parties compounding offence during revision .Stands substantially dispensed with by insertion of S.On filing of an application u/s 145(2) witness must be made available for cross examination by the rival party.P. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta). Vs State of W. 147-.)..Compounding of offence .320 Cr. & Anr. Section 138.).P. (Magma Leasing Ltd.Recording statement of complainant . (Sabu George & etc.Written compromise also filed .Complainant permitted to compound offence . Vs Amarjit Singh).. Vs Home Secretary. Section 138. 1881.I.145.Compromise in revision . 1881. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 559 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (BOMBAY) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 208 (P&H) #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT .. can be invoked after disposal of revision notwithstanding the bar u/s 362 Cr. 138-.Dishonour of cheque .C. 147-. it is not necessary to again record examination-in-chief of the witness whose affidavit of examination-in-chief is already filed . 138-. Department of Home Affairs. summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.Dishonour of cheque . (Sabu George & etc.). 146-.Provisions of Sections 145 and 146 N.). Section 145(2).Complaint . (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr. (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Affidavits . 1881. 1881. (Susanta Kumar Moharana Vs Ramesh Kumar Bhatta).Court on application of prosecution or accused. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #3: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881.In such a case High Court can exercise its power u/s 482 Cr. 1881.Accused acquitted.) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 151 (M. trial or other proceeding .Evidence of prosecution as well as evidence of accused and defence witnesses can be taken on affidavit . Section 138. Section 138.).Table appended to S. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 519 (CALCUTTA) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 147-.Offence u/s 138 is compoundable without permission of Court..Compromise after conviction . 1881.However.P. New Delhi & Anr. it is open to the discretion of the Judge to put questions to the complainant if he considers it necessary.145 in the NI Act .C. evidence of complainant can be given by him on affidavit and can be read in evidence in any enquiry. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 75 (M.Dishonour of cheque .For the purpose of issuing process.. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Santosh Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI.C.Offence under Act is compoundable ..) #1: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Dishonour of cheque .) 3075 #2: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #6: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 146-..P. Section 138. is not attracted to offences under Negotiable Instruments Act . Section 145-. Section 145.Allowed .Accused acquitted.Dishonour of cheque ..Affidavits ..Provision of S.. Vs Home Secretary.Kiran Bala & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.P. Section 138.P. Section 145. 1881.).Conviction and sentence set aside. 1881. (M/s Indo International Ltd. 147-.In such a case power u/s 482 Cr.Compromise during pendency of appeal .Compounding of offence after verdict of conviction and sentence becomes final .). (Surindera Rani Vs Smt.B & Ors.A close reading of these sections reveal that they relate to post cognizance operation and never treat to the pre-cognizance stages.In case evidence is taken on affidavit then after an application is made by other party under sub-section (2) of S.Conviction set aside.ALLMR(CRI) 1114 : 2006(1) BOMCR(CRI) 264 : 2006(3) CURCRIR 282 : 2006(4) MAHLJ 381 #15: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Conviction set aside .Affidavit of complainant can be filed . 1881. Department of Home Affairs. 147-.C. (Mahendra Kumar Vs Armstrong & Anr. (Harjeet Singh & Anr..) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 814 (RAJASTHAN) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 145. as also under Article 226 and 227 of Constitution . 138-. 147-.). 1881.). 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ORISSA) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 160 (ORISSA) #2: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.145 of the Act is retrospective in operation and is applicable to cases pending before the provision came into force. Act are not mandatory in nature and option has been left open for the parties to take recourse to these provisions or to the normal provisions contemplated under the Cr. But only a compoundable offence allowed by law can be compounded. 1881.Direction to pay double the amount of cheque as compensation .Offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable.Table appended to S.In the instant case in view of peculiar facts of the case.Dishonour of cheque .Ltd. 1881. is not attracted as provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of IPC and none other. 1881.C.Conviction .Dishonour of cheque .P.Acquittal cannot be recoded on this ground . Section 138.Cheque amount paid and complainant received the same . on behalf of a party to a lis is binding on the parties..Compromise and compounding .) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.Provision of S.Compounding of offence .Held. 1881.). Section 138. any settlement arrived at. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 25 (A..147 are compoundable .) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.147 of the Act only removes the prohibition .Revision against Compounding of offence .Dishonour of cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 439 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 351 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 214 (P&H) : 2007(1) RECCIVR 217 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.Appellate Court maintained conviction but amount of compensation reduced During pendency of revision in High Court parties compromised and payment made towards full and final settlement of dues .P. offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable and there is no reason to refuse compromise between parties Order of conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted of the charge against him.Accused convicted . 147-. Section 147-.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 075 (P&H) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C.147 of the Act.). Section 138.Dishonour of cheque .With the amendment introduced in S. 1881.Offences under the Act committed prior to insertion of S.N.C.C. provision is not applicable to concluded matters.Rajeshwari Vs H. 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.Mohana Pai Vs V. every offence punishable under the Act is compoundable.Compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act can be done during trial of case as well as by the High Court or Court or Session while acting in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Cr.C. (Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s A. 147-.A.Heavy Machinery & Engg. 1881. (Ramesh Chander Vs State of Haryana & Anr.C.320 Cr. Court itself recording settlement and acquitted the accused.However.C.C.Amount of cheque and damages paid . 147-.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.C. 1881.Conviction .Not synonyms .).Scope . (R.. Section 147-.Parties compromised during pendency of revision .) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S. Section 138.).Rajeshwari Vs H. 1881. Section 138..C.) #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.N.It shall be taken that parties have compounded the offence .Compromise after conviction . 147-.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.A. Section 138.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 188 (A.P. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Jagadish). (R. 147-.. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.. Section 138. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.Accused can be acquitted if parties arrive at settlement . Section 147-.C. 147-. 147-.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.). 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Order of conviction and sentence set aside.Compounding of offence . Section 138.Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 147-.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. (Gurmeet Singh Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 147-.Dishonour of cheque . (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman).Conviction .) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL..).Dishonour of cheque .Accused making payment of cheque . Section 138.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.. Vs Amarjit Singh).. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman).Dishonour of cheque . 1881.) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.Compounding of offence by Advocate When authority is granted by a litigant in favour of Advocate which empowers the latter to enter into a settlement. 1881.C.Conviction and sentence set aside. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.Any dispute can be compromised between the parties if the terms are not illegal . 1881..C. (M.Jagadish).Jabbar & Anr. 1881. .Is not a cheque . Section 138.C. Section 138.High Court cannot reverse. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 171 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 479 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 69 : AIR 2007 NOC 92 (RAJ.. (Ramesh Deshpande Vs Punjab & Sind Bank). 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.There is no provision under S. 1881. 124.25 lacs .Presumption .Dishonour of pay order Provision is not attracted. Section 138.) 0257 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0673 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0054 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.Parties compromised during pendency of revision petition in High Court . 1881.Loan of Rs...Dishonour of cheque .. 1881.M.. 1881.in Cr. 139-. there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration .P. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139. (Ami Lal Vs Mahavir Prasad Surendra Mohan). 1881.Dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds .Drawee is entitled to compensation .Rebuttal .Dishonour of cheque .Consideration . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0558 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0377 : 1998 (2) RCR (CRL. 1881.In view of Section 147 of the Act complainant permitted to compound the offence and order of conviction and sentence set aside and complainant ordered to be acquitted. Section 147-.Dishonour of cheque .. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0351 : 1998 (3) CCR 0318 : 1998 (1) KLT 0384 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Compensation .Bearer cheque . (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr. by using power u/s 482 Cr.Dishonour of cheque . (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman).Presumption . Section 138.Dishonour of cheque .Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd. Section 147-.) : 2006(1) ALJ(EE) 41 : 2006(1) ALLMR 1 JS 1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.It does not relieve complainant from proving pre-existing debt or legal liability to pay amount shown in cheque. 1881. (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes).320 Cr. (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman). 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A. 139-.Remedy of compensation is in addition to common law remedy for recovery of amount covered by cheque.Compounding of offence . 1881..Kondody).Cash cheque is a legal and valid negotiable instrument .).Legally enforceable debt .Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration . 139-. 5.Conviction of accused merely because he admitted his signature on disputed cheque not proper .P.P.Non mentioning of payee's name and the striking off the words `or bearer' does not make the cheque invalid. Section 147-. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J..Pay order . (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman). rebuttable. 118(g).Lack of .Offence under Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable when appeal or revision is pending.118(g) that holder of a negotiable instrument is a holder in due course .C. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. alter or modify conviction which has become final by its own order passed in a revision petition.320(1) and (2). 1881. or Negotiable Instruments Act to accept or permit compounding after conviction has become final and no appeal or revision is pending against conviction. 1881.). Section 138.Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted. (M/s A.No evidence produced to prove financial viability of complainant to raise such huge amount . Section 138. 9-.Dishonour of cheque . however. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KERALA) (DB) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 238 (KERALA) (DB) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Rajendraprasad Gangabishen Porwal Vs Santoshkumar Parasmal Saklecha & Anr.Under Section 118(a).Rebuttal .) ISJ (BANKING) 0762 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 6. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 474 (BOMBAY) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 147-. against compounding offences not mentioned in the tables in S.This presumption is.C. Section 138.Legally enforceable debt . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Kondody). 7-. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (BOMBAY) : 1999 .Not necessary for accused to produce evidence . (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J.P. 117-. 1881.Accused can discharge the onus placed on him even on the basis of material brought on record by the complainant.). (Sudheer Kumar Vs Kunhiraman). 1881. Section 138. 118(1)-.`Legally enforceable debt' .Complainant himself was in debt ... taking note of subsequent events like compounding of the case. 118-.There is presumption under S.2001 (SUPP.. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.. a mere signature in the cheque or a writing of the amount or date in the cheque is not sufficient to conclude that the cheque is drawn by the accused in favour of the complainant. 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions. Section 138. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138.For rebutting such presumption.). (A. 139-.. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 273 (P&H) (DB) #10: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 666 (BOMBAY) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 070 (BOMBAY) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. once signatures in the impugned cheques were admitted then there is presumption u/s 139 of the Act.Once the cheque is issued.pleading . (Ganga Prashad Vs Lalit Kumar).Loan . 1881. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138..Presumption as to .Naik Hotels & Ors.To rebut presumption accused need not to lead positive evidence . 1881.Held. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 763 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 592 (KARNATAKA) #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 453 (MADRAS) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 402 (MADRAS) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . (Jose Vs P. 139.Coldspot Vs M/s. 139-. 139-.Presumption stands rebutted .Presumption . (M/s..The rebuttal would not have to be conclusively established ..Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Presumption u/s 139 .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .However.There is no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting liability .Choodappa). (Kalim M.C. Section 138..Muralidhar).Dishonour of cheque .Rebuttal of presumption as to issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .139 of the Act.Held.R.Dishonour of cheque .To rebut presumption it is not necessary to lead positive evidence Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record . Vs M/s Tera Construction Private Ltd.S.Time barred debt is also valid consideration.The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability is on the accused which they have to discharge in the trial.. accused cannot contend that it is not in respect of legally enforceable debt .C.Name of payee not written .). 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) #6: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. (T. 1881.Cheque issued towards time barred debt . 1881. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 630 (P&H) #12: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. Vs S. Section 138.Rebuttal .Signatures admitted . 139-.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S.Presumption available u/ss 138.Even for the said purpose. 1881. opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal.. (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh).. 139-. Section 138. (First Learning Quest Private Ltd.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #14: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139-. 1881. 1881. what is needed is to raise a probable defence . (Raman Finance Corporation Vs Harmeet Singh). 139-. 118-.Failure to produce even loan agreement . 139-.Cheque without consideration .Ltd. that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S.Burden of proving that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of any debt or other liability was thus not discharged.Available only when it is proved that cheque was drawn by accused .Rebuttable . evidence must be adduced in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable .Dishonour of cheque .Held.Presumption can be rebutted from the circumstances on record.To draw a cheque it must be prepared by the drawer himself or cause the relevant details in the cheque to be filled up by another person under his instructions but the cheque shall be signed by the drawer himself .Dishonour of cheque .Onus to prove is on person who asserts so .Nagappa Vs Y.This is a rebuttable presumption which can be rebutted only by the person who drew the cheque.Joy). 1881.Accused alleging misuse of cheque . (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.Srinivasa Sah).Accused neither examined himself nor examined any witness .C.Dishonour of cheque . (S. the evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon.Complainant a businessman not producing any account to prove advancement of loan .Cheque issued against loan .No evidence that complainant entered his name as payee as per instructions of accused .Standard of reasonability is that of a prudent man.Issuance of cheque in discharge of legal liability . 1881.M. 118(a)-. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 578 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). Section 138. Section 138.Parameshwarappa & Anr.Rebuttable presumption Presumption that cheque was issued for a debt or liability is in favour of holder of cheque .Presumption .). Section 138.Raja Sah Vs B.Khan Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.. Section 138.M. 139-. Section 138.B. mere denial of issuing cheque is not sufficient to rebut the presumption available u/s 139 of the Act.) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.In a complaint u/s 138 of the Act..).It cannot be presumed that an implied authority is given to the holder of the cheque to fill it up towards discharge of a debt etc. 1881.Mohanan & Anr. 1881.Blank cheque . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 618 (KERALA) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Burden of proof on accused is not as high as that of the prosecution.Order by Revisional Court setting aside the order issuing process cannot be faulted with. 139-. (Kamala S.If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration .Santhamma & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Presumption .Dishonour of cheque .Even if the signature in the cheque is admitted there is no presumption available that it is executed by the accused.Dishonour of cheque . 139-.Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back .K.).C.C. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 287 (KARNATAKA) #20: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139. 1881. 139-.).. 1881...Discharging of liability . 139-.The burden of proving that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of a debt or liability is on the accused.. 1881. 118(a)-.Shiva Shankar & Anr.It is for drawer to rebut presumption . 1881. once cheque is duly singed by accused. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER. . (Kamalammal Vs C. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139. when complainant does not place on record any material of lending money then it is sufficient to infer that accused is able to rebut the presumption available in favour of the complainant .The presumption is rebuttable . 139-. Section 138.Sivaraman Vs State of Kerala & Ors. 1881. Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability .Dishonour of cheque .Rathikumar Vs N. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 472 (BOMBAY) #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J.Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally . (J. 1881.Accused not guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act.The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities .J.Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable.Dishonour of cheque .Consideration .K.) #24: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant .K. 139-. Section 138. (G. Section 138.Presumption .It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence . (Travel Force Vs Mohan N.Blank cheque . 1881. Section 138.No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged ..Dishonour of cheque .Mohanan & Anr. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 237 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2108 (KER. Section 138.Held. (Kamalammal Vs C.Denial of issuance of cheque .Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability .Inference can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon which the accused relies upon .Cheque issued towards investment in one of the complainants' Fixed Deposit Schemes .).Dishonour of cheque . Vs Vidyadharan M. Section 138.Standard of proof in discharge of the burden is preponderance of a probability . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 458 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2031 (KAR..Cheque is issued without consideration or that it was not issued towards the discharge of any debt or liability .).. Vs Vidyadharan M.Consideration . (Kamala S.There must be allegation in complaint and evidence that blank cheque was issued with implied authority to holder to fill up the same.Dishonour of cheque . it is to be presumed that cheque was issued for discharge of debt or other liability.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007 CRILJ 3124 : 2006(3) KERLJ 95 : 2006(3) KERLT 972 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 875 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). 1881.Veeresham Vs S.No proof of lending money .denied .P. 139-.Ramaraj Vs IIiyaz Khan).) #16: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Bhave & Anr. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S. Section 138.. (K. Section 138.Rebuttal .P. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.) #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138. 139-. & Anr. (R.) : 2007 CRILJ 902 : 2007(3) ALJ 393 : 2007(1) AIRKARR 91 : 2007(2) AIRBOMR 318 : 2007(51) ALLINDCAS 227 : ILR(KANT) 2006 KAR 4672 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 489 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Even month or year of loan not disclosed .Held. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 532 (A.).. Section 138. (Jayamma Vs Lingamma).Presumption Rebuttal .Presumption .).In absence of rebuttal evidence.Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones . 118(a)-. & Anr. Samudra Ropes Pvt. 1881.P. 1881. 138.Cheque dishonoured . 138. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI.Dishonour of cheque .Legally enforceable debt . 140. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER.Loan transaction taking place in 1994 and cheque for repayment of loan issued for the year 1999 . 138. 141. 139-. 1881.) BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6) BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.A.Holder in due course . 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Cheque given as collateral security . 139-.Loan amount became time barred in the year 1997 Held.Dishonour of cheque ..Partnership firm . 1881. of any debt or other liability. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank). 43-. Ltd.Amount not paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding .Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988.Complaint against `A' maintainable.30 lakhs and promissory note executed .). 138.No interference in order of acquittal. (Abdul Hameed Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.If such a cheque is deposited and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability..) 2005(3) KER. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 483 (A.e. (K.It is for accused to rebut presumption contained in S.. Vs M/s. 138..Mal Reddy). (Goa Handicrafts. Rural & Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd. 139. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1009 (BOMBAY) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque dishonoured .. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram). 1881.).Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors. in whole or in part. 139.On repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards discharge of loan amount . (H.Under Section 139 it has to be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of debt or other liability .K.When there is failure to prove factum of retirement from partnership the only reasonable conclusion could be that there was no existing liability as on date of issuance of cheque .Loan taken of Rs. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI.Cheque was never meant to be deposited . 1881.Evidence as to retirement from partnership not adduced .Dissolution .Burden of proof is on accused that cheques were not supported by consideration. 139-.upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.Drawer held guilty of offence.Presumption is that cheque was for the discharge.Debt and liability .Payment stopped on the ground that cheques were not supported by consideration .Bank becomes holder in due course . 138.Legally enforceable debt .) 562 #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited Vs M. there was no existing liability .Specific plea of accused that complainant is still a partner .Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque. 1881.Cheque issued to retiring partner . when cheque is issued for some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet another promise i.). (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala).).Narasimha Rao Vs Venkataram R. (K.Means any person who for consideration became the possessor of promissory note.Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil case . 138. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 .`A' gave loan to `B' . 138.) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ 838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0497 #8: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139-.Indira Devi & Ors.`B' made an endorsement in favour of Bank .Prakash Rao Vs U.) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 518 (A..Time barred debt . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 670 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 975 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) KAR LJ 238 : ILR 2006 KAR 4242 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM. 1999 (SUPPL.Held.) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.One partner issued cheque to the other towards his liability .I. there is no legal bar for the debtor agreeing to pay the time barred debt .). 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Cheque constitutes an agreement or promise by the debtor to pay the time barred debt . 139-.) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (KERALA) #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .P. 1881. (K. 139-. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (MADRAS) ..George Vs Muhammed Master). 139-.Dishonour of cheque . withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque.Bank purchased cheque from `B' ..139 of Negotiable Instruments Act.Civil case not withdrawn .No fresh consideration is required for debtor's promise to pay the time barred debt . 142-. 2004(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (RAJASTHAN) : 2004(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 194 (RAJASTHAN) #7: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. bill of exchange or cheque if payable to bearer or the payee or indorsee thereof . Presumption available u/ss 138.. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (BOMBAY) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 977 (BOMBAY) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. accused cannot be punished under S.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions .1. 140.P.). (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors. 1881. L..) 0767 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Bhoosanrao Vs Purushothamdas Pantani). (B. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (DELHI) : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.Mohan Krishna & Ors.P.Sampath Vs Praveen Chandra V. Section 138. 1881.A.Then only burden shifts to the drawer of the cheque to rebut that presumption. 139. 4361 : 1999 (5) BCR 0124 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL.Act of complainant amounted to sale of property within meaning of S.Chapter XVII consisting of Ss.). 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.This question is a matter of evidence .) #15: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complainant is bound to discharge the initial burden cast upon him that the cheque was given by the accused in discharge of legally enforceable liability Complainant failing to prove satisfactorily that he has sufficient capacity to lend the amount of Rs.Held.Failure on part of complainant to prove consideration . 139-.). 138. Vs Union of India & Ors.B. 139-..) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #18: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Agreement to sell .45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude .) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL. 118-.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #17: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Promissory Notes and other like instruments' . 139-. 142-. 138.) (D..) 0351 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Union of India & Ors. Section 138. Cheques.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Trial Court should have afforded an opportunity to the complainant to lead evidence. 142-.Failure also on part of accused to prove that he did not get the consideration Presumption in favour of complainant continues and failure of complainant is not sufficient to lead one to the conclusion that presumption is rebutted.). 000/. 138.Shah). (Hemant Pavel Gracias Vs Socorro Santan Fernandes). L.J. (Ganesh Sukhlal Joshi Vs M. L. Entries 45.Occurring in Entries Nos.Constitution of India..Legally enforceable liability .Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow and the same consequences would follow where the drawer stops the payment after issue of the cheque.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 140.. 1881.J. Vs OK Play India Ltd. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt. 139-. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 . 138.Words `Banking. Union List. 139. 138.#10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.B. 139-. 138. 141.).138 .. (Kamboj Gram Udyog Samiti Vs Dhillon Bricks Works).It would be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of liability and not as security. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (A.`Stop payment' . 1999 (SUPPL. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A. 1881.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of ListI (Union List. 1881.138 of the Act.. 138. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL. 1881.) (B.Dishonour of cheque .P. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. 25. 118-. (Mahendra A. 139.Dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds . 138.) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (MADRAS) #12: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 139-.P. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 14 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0050 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Sale transaction not completed .Holder of cheque-There is a presumption that the cheque received is for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or any other liability and the accused is required to dislodge this presumption.) (D..Dishonour of cheque . 139 & 118 are all rebuttable presumptions.. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.Bharti). 1881. 1881.Once the cheque is issued by the drawer a presumption under Section 139 must follow . Seventh Schedule.Ltd.Accused on appearance sought dismissal of complaint on ground that cheque had not been issued against existing liability . 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (BOMBAY) #16: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Union of India & Ors.Held. 141. 139.Matters covered by S. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J.Mohan Krishna & Ors. 46 .Legal debt and liability . 1881. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 438 (BOMBAY) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0433 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0133 : 1998 CRL. (V.Merely because the drawer issues a notice to the drawee or to the Bank for stoppage of the payment it will not preclude an action under Section 138 of the Act by the drawee or the holder of a cheque in due course. 139-..Accused making part payment and issuing cheques of balance consideration .54 of Transfer of Property act .Accused guilty of offence under S.Consideration .Accused put in possession of land and given Power of Attorney to do all acts and deeds in respect of land . Bills of Exchange.Dadia Vs State of Maharasthra). Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss. 138.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (A. 1881.Initial burden lies on complaint to show that cheque was issued to discharge a legally enforceable debt or other liability . 1881.by way of cheque and his failure to prove that amount was actually drawn by the accused . Chapter XVII consisting of Ss..). Section 138. 139.138 to 142 not ultra vires the powers of union Parliament to enact such provisions .). Parliament has power and competence to enact Chapter XVII containing Ss.(BOMBAY) #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.. Union List.J. (Kamala S.Legally enforceable debt . Section 138. 142-. Bills of Exchange.) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.C. 140.Presumption u/ss 139 & 118(a) are rebuttable ones . 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A.Constitution of India.It is not necessary for accused to disprove the existence of consideration by way of direct evidence ..Dishonour of cheque . opportunity should be granted to accused for adducing evidence in rebuttal.138 fall within Entries 45 and 46 of List-I (Union List. 140-.Mohan Krishna & Ors. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S. (M/s.Repeal of Act 30 of 2001 does not affect amendments effected in Negotiable Instruments Act by Act 66 of 1988.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S. 118(a)-. Section 138.Muralidhar). Vs Union of India & Ors. 1881. (T. (Arumughan Pillai Vs State of Kerala).) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S..Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Cheque issued for withdrawal of civil case . Promissory Notes and other like instruments' Occurring in Entries Nos.If accused is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that existence of consideration was improbable than onus shifts to complainant to prove the fact of consideration . 1881.K.Held. 141.Company . 141. 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 54 (BOMBAY) : AIR 2003 BOM.45 and 46 are couched in widest form and have to be given widest amplitude . (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors.P. (K.. 141-. 1881. Vs Union of India & Ors. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 308 (KERALA) : 2005(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (KERALA) : 2005 CRI LJ 3259 : 2005(4) ALL CRI LR 655 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 482 : 2006(1) BANK CAS 518 : 2006 BANK J 310 : 2006(1) CIV LJ 674 : 2005(4) EAST CRI C 530 : ILR(KER..Dishonour of cheque .Presumption whether stood rebutted or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.B.The standard of proof in such cases is preponderance of probabilities .P. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.An allegation in the complaint that the named accused are Directors of the company itself would usher in the element of their acting for .) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Nagappa Vs Y. (Vinay Parulekar Vs Pramod Meshram).).Vasudeva Kurup Vs Union of India & Ors.C. 43-. 142-. 139. 1881.C.S. 142-. 1881. 141. Seventh Schedule.e.). 139.Matters covered by S. withdrawal of civil case and cheque is issued on that basis and that promise is not fulfilled then cheque is without valid consideration u/s 43 of the Act and it will not create any obligation on the part of the drawer of the cheque or any right which can be claimed by the holder of the cheque.).Dishonour of cheque .Directors . 139. 1881.Presumption Rebuttal .Words `Banking.`Mens rea' is not an essential ingredient for constituting an offence under S. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.Held.Accused can raise a probable defence from the material brought on record by him as well as by the complainant .) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL.Civil case not withdrawn . Vs Union of India & Ors.140 which excludes the defence that the drawer had no reason to believe that the cheque issued by him may be dishonoured on presentment not unreasonable or violative of article 14 of the Constitution. 322 : 2005(2) KLJ 536 : 2005(4) RCR(CRI. Section 138. 1881. Section 138.) #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 139.Presumption could be rebutted either by leading evidence or bringing facts on record in cross-examination of complainant or through the documents produced by complainant which could make the case of complainant improbable that the cheque was issued in discharge of any debt or liability ..J.Power of Attorney holder can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of his Principal.R.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) (B. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 023 (S.). Section 138. & Anr..C. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 . 140. 140. Section 138.Consideration . 1881.) 781 : 2002(4) MAD LJ 838 : 2003(1) REC CRI R 31 : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANK #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) (D.Onus upon the accused is not as heavy as is normally upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.) BOM 119 : 2003(2) ANDH WR 11 : 2003(2) BANK CLR 352 : 2003(2) BANK CAS 481 : 2003 BANK J 286 : 2002(6) BOM CR 39 : 2003(1) CIV LJ 877 : 2003(1) ICC 843 : 2003(2) KLT 514 : 2003 MAD LJ(CRI.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 64 : 2003(1) ALL CRI LR 1021 : 2003(2) ANDH LT (CRI. 46 . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 632 (BOMBAY) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR 0140 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0185 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0229 : 1996 BJ 0644 : 1995 (1) CRIMES 0226 : 1996 AIHC 5588 : 1995(1) CCR 702 #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . L. 139. (Mayuri Pulse Mills & Ors.) 562 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. Section 138. that even in a case where a presumption can be raised u/s 118(a) or S. 118(a)-. Section 138. Cheques. when cheque is issued for some other complementary facts or fulfilment of yet another promise i.) 2005(3) KER.139 of the Act.. 141-. 1881. Entries 45. 139. 118(a)-. Vs Vidyadharan M. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S. 1881.Accused alleging misuse of cheque .Held. Section 138. If any Director of the company claims that he was not the person looking after the affairs of the company this fact has to be proved by him by leading cogent evidence before the trial Court .Held. it is for the Directors to establish it at the trial.A.Verma & Ors.).Prosecution of Company.No averment in complaint that at the time when offence was committed accused No.A.and on behalf of the company and of their being in charge of the company. it is sufficient when it is pleaded that the firm has two partners who are also arrayed as accused persons.Director .Held.C.Directors . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 084 (DELHI) #10: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs V.Dishonour of cheque . 141-.C. Section 138. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors. Chairman and Vice-President .Anty & Anr. a hypertechnical approach is not to be adopted.If the substance of the allegations made in the complaint fulfills the requirements of S. Section 138.Complaint against accused 2 to 7 quashed. Vs V..Held.C.. Vs J. accused No.Dishonour of cheque . Joint Managing Director and three Directors .).A person in the commercial world having a transaction with a company is entitled to presume that the Directors of the company are in charge of the affairs of the company .Petition to quash summoning order dismissed. Section 138. that complainant had pleaded in his complaint that petitioners were directors of the company and were in-charge and responsible for the affairs and business of the Company . 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S. Section 138.Dishonour of cheque . complaint has to be read as a whole .Consisting of two partners . 141-.Complaint against Chairman. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 573 (H.Rajda Vs State of Maharashtra). 1881. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd.Company . when complaint is in relation to a firm of which there are only two partners. Section 138.. Section 138.Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no averment they were incharge of and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the company. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. Ltd.A creditor is not supposed to know are the sleeping directors or actively involved directors in the management of the company .141 of the Act .).. 1881.141 of the Act then complaint has to proceed and is required to be tried with In construing a complaint.Company .) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 192 (S.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Partnership firm .Composite notice of more than one cheque is valid.P.. (Paresh P.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 253 (S. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 019 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 350 (DELHI) #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (R. (Anoop Jhalani Vs State & Anr.Dishonour of cheque . Section 138.C. Section 138. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #7: HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Directors . 141-. 141-.e.).).If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company.Dishonour of cheque .Defence of accused that they had nothing to do with the affairs of the company .Dishonour of cheque . Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.Petition by Vice-President for quashing of proceedings ..Dishonour of Cheque .).C. 141-.1 or not Petition to quash proceedings dismissed.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.) #8: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Accused summoned being Directors of Company . (Green Sea Marine & Ors.141 of the Act . (Subhash Sahni Vs M/s.Specific plea in complaint that Vice-President negotiated with the complainant in respect of the transaction and held out assurances that liability would be cleared .) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S. 141-.Resignation of the petitioner from the company is a defence of the petitioner which he can take before the trial Court .Allegation that they were officers and responsible for the affairs of the company .No ground to quash the complaint.) : 2008(2) KLT 983 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 2357 #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act..Sleeping director . 141-.K. 1881.Anty & Anr. 1881..Verma & Ors..L. Section 138..Notice .Complaint against firm and both the partners . (Bharat Poonam Chand Shah Vs Dominors Printech India Pvt.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (Devender Raina Vs State & Anr.Auro Spinning Mills). 141-. (Green Sea Marine & Ors.It will be decided during trial if Vice-President has acted on behalf of company i.Partnership firm .Being Director of the company a Director is not jointly and severally liable for the acts of the company .Company .It is sufficient compliance within the meaning of S.) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.Dishonour of cheque . 141-.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 413 (S. 1881.Pleading as to requirement of S.).Company .Company .Company .C.No pleading in complaint that at the time the offence was committed both the partners were incharge and responsible to the firm for the conduct of business of the firm . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 460 (KERALA) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 792 (DELHI) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (DELHI) #11: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.). 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S. 1881.C.Cheque signed by both the partners . 141-.Directors .2 to 7 were incharge and were responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company .Resigned before . Section 138. 1881.Company . Karnataka & Ors.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.C.Also no specific overt act attributed to petitioner regarding his involvement in the commission of alleged offence . averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.5 & 6 discharged.C.Prosecution evidence already closed and case fixed for defence evidence . Section 138.74 Evidence Act .Ltd.Held.Director . 2008(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 065 (S..) #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (Skyline Aquatech Exports Ltd.) : AIR 2008 SC 3273 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .Cheque issued by Company Summoning order .) #17: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . Section 138..Proprietorship firm . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 134 (P&H) #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Prosecution of signatory without prosecution of company itself .) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 056 (S.Joint account of husband and wife Husband issued cheque drawn to joint bank account to discharge his liability . 141-.Dishonour of cheque . Ltd.No particular role assigned to petitioner . 141-.No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant .141 of the Act was only clarificatory in nature and clarified what S.No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque . Section 138.5 & 6 were incharge of or were responsible to the company for the conduct of business of company at the time.Summoning order quashed. to summon an additional accused at a later stage. 141-.Complaint filed against proprietorship firm through its proprietor . Vs Sachima Agro Industries Pvt.No categorical averment either in complaint or in the statement on oath that accused Nos. Section 138. 141-.Bandeep Kaur Vs S.Difference of opinion as to whether signatory only can be prosecuted without prosecution of company .303(2) of the Companies Act This document is not a public document in terms of S.Company .) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.The fact whether petitioner resigned from the company before issuance of cheque still remains in the category of disputed fact which is required to be proved or disproved at the stage of trial .Complaint is maintainable so long as the identification of human individual behind the curtain is possible without any mistake.Held.Dishonour of cheque . trial Court will be at liberty to exercise its power u/s 319 Cr.Bhansali Vs The State & Anr.). 1881.Petitioner resigned as Director of company ..Company .Dishonour of cheque ..Held.Petition to quash proceedings dismissed.Such document even issued by public authority in terms of S.Dishonour of cheque .Company .Wife neither having dealings with the petitioner nor drawer of cheque .A company can be proceeded against in a criminal proceeding even where imposition of substantive sentence is provided for. Goa).C.32 . 142-. From No. (Malwa Cotton & Spinning Mills Ltd..141 of the Act . 1881.Dishonour of cheque . one way or the other - .C.Such a document falls within the category of 'shall presume' . the offence was committed . 1881.. (Dev Sareen Vs DCM Financial Ltd. 141-. Section 138. 1881.C.However.Liability of company where substantive sentence is provided . (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s. (Budhmal Bhansali @ B.Directors . that it is a document which the company is required to furnish before the Registrar of Companies in terms of S. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 372 (CALCUTTA) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 573 (CALCUTTA) #21: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 141.Dishonour of cheque .One of the accused was a nominee director and enjoyed the immunity provided by S.27 of SFCA provided Accused Nos.Order quashing proceedings set aside.In view of difference of opinion matter referred to larger bench.). 141-. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S.32 was filed with the Registrar of Companies much after the cheques were issued .Dishonour of Cheque . 1881..P. Ltd.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 168 (S.. Vs Virsa Singh Sidhu & Ors.Petitioner placed on record photocopy of Form No.).).Avneet Singh). 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 309 (BOMBAY) #20: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Additional accused Averments unspecific and general .27(3) of State Financial Corporations Act Held. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #18: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .Proceedings against wife quashed.)..Proper course was to allow the proceeding to go on to come to its logical conclusion.Proviso .Held. (Aneeta Hada Vs M/s. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 534 (DELHI) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 658 (DELHI) #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.cheques were issued .).). wife is not liable . Section 138.However.C.Summoning order concerning petitioner quashed . 141-.C. Section 138. Section 138. 1881.C. that second proviso to S. 141-. Section 138. (Smt.P.76 of the Act does not fall within the category of 'Conclusive Proof' as defined u/s 4 Evidence Act . 1881. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 537 (BOMBAY) #14: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. & Ors.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 690 (S. (Natesha Securities Vs Vinayak Waman Mokashi & Anr.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 604 (S. the effect of delayed presentation before the Registrar of companies can only be decided after parties lead evidence .Challenged on the ground that it is not averred in the complaint as to in what manner accused was responsible for the conduct of business of the company .Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company . It is not so in case of Directors .Complaint by Managing Partner of a firm in respect of a cheque issued in favour of firm is maintianble. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #24: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. 1881.Court declined to interfere in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.N.Dishonour of cheque .Proceedings against petitioner quashed.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.C.Dishonour of cheque . Ltd.1 and 2 conspired with or abetted accused Nos.) : 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 266 (S. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 66 (DELHI) #4: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Ltd. (T. 141-.Dishonour of cheque .Mere fact that at one point of time some role has been played by the accused may not by itself be sufficient to attract the constructive liability under Section 141 of the Act. 138. he is an officer with executive powers.Directors .Company .Company .Allegations bald and general in nature .Account attached by Income Tax Department .Raman & Ors. Section 138.Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company . makes it clear that the person was in-charge and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.The purpose would be served if the averments.. Vs J.When Director is also executive.Statutory notice to every person.It is not necessary that in the complaint the words u/s 141 of the Act should be verbatim quoted .Partnership firm ..Company . should receive strict construction . by whatever words used.Meaning . 138. Vs M/s Vascon). 1881.Cheque number of second cheque not mentioned in notice . (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr.C.Company . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-. (Nasar Vs State of Kerala). consent or supervision for the reasons by virtue of the designation of his office . who is sought to be prosecuted. 141-.Managing Director and Director Liability .) 152 : 2008(3) RCR(C) 270 : 2008(8) SCALE 54 : 2008(3) RAJ 679 : AIR 2008 SC 2255 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt.Offence u/s 138 of the Act .Dishonour of cheque .Directors . (Ashok Newatia Vs State & Anr. 1881.). & Anr.Banker's cheque . 138. 138. 1881. & Anr.).. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 115 (GAUHATI) #3: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-... 1881.No fault can be found in the complaint.1 & 2 quashed.. Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. 1881. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 446 (S.).It requires strict compliance of the provision .S.Company . 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #2: GAUHATI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138..The statute being a penal one.Director's responsibility Complainant has to specifically show as to how and in what manner the accused alleged director was responsible for the conduct of business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its function . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (KERALA) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-.).Not a ground to quash proceedings as it is a matter of evidence.Sleeping Director .).Dishonour of cheque .Sareen & Anr. & Anr. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr.Gupta & Anr. 138. including Director.). 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 359 (DELHI) #5: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Dishonour of cheque . 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (CALCUTTA) #22: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (B. (Kishorilal Ramnath Dhoot & Anr.1 & 2 were responsible for conduct of business of the company at relevant time and nothing to show that accused Nos.Cheque dishonoured and in lieu thereof second cheque issued . Vs Roots & Herbs Pvt. 138.Issuance of Bankers cheque being the result of an oversight or negligence . is mandatory.In case of Managing Director a presumption arises that the offence is committed with his active knowledge. 1881.A legal fiction has been created thereby . 141-.C.) : 2008(3) RCR(CRL.To fasten liability on a Director it has to be proved that the person named as the Director was responsible to the company and was in charge of the affairs of the Company pertaining to the conduct of the business of the company. (DCM Financial Services Ltd.Company ..Dishonour of cheque .Notice . (Sona P.R. it cannot be said that notice is not valid.Company . Ltd. 141-.Company ..Notice . (Bhagwati Prasad Bajaj Vs Brahm Prakash Sharma).Nothing in complaint to show that accused Nos. (Sarla Jain Vs Central Bank of India). 1881. charged with administrative work and is a person with senior managerial responsibility in the business . 141-.Dishonour of cheque .Proceedings against accused Nos.) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 303 (S.Dishonour of cheque .'Accused are Directors and Executive of the Company' .Held.141 of the Act provides for a constructive liability .Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 518 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 547 (BOMBAY) #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.3 & 4 in respect of alleged offence . Section 138. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 407 (DELHI) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 412 (DELHI) #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Walvekar Vs State of West Bengal & Ors. 141-. Section 138. Section 138..Specific averments in the complaint petition so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 141 of the Act are imperative . 141-.). 1881. 141-. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #14: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.In absence of any averment or specific evidence the complaint is not entertainable.Company .Notice to company .is not made out .Dishonour of cheque .Partnership firm .). (Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. secretary or other officer of the company . 138.C.Patiala Auto Enterprises etc. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) ... (N.Company . 1881.Summoning order qua petitioner quashed..Prosecution of authorised signatory also not sought u/s 141 of the Act as the person who was incharge of.Partner .Director .. 141-.Dishonour of cheque .On consideration of complaint extent of involvement of petitioner not gathered .Company . (B.)..) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S. 138.Company .Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Company . (N.. 141-.Complaint quashed.Dishonour of cheque . 138.There should be an assertion in the complaint that the named accused are directors of the company and that they are incharge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. Vs State & Anr. 1881.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI.. manager.. 138.Dishonour of cheque . Vs Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd.Proceedings quashed against petitioners. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd. 1881.Company .P.Persons sought to be made criminally liable .Mere fact that proceedings have been quashed against the accused will not prevent the Court from exercising its discretion if it is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against him has been made out in the additional evidence led before it.Company . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #12: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Stand of petitioners that they have no privity of contract with complainant company . 138. who is sought to be prosecuted is mandatory. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S..).Dishonour of cheque .Notice .Prosecution of authorised signatory Notice not given to company .Petitioner not incharge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company . 138. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (P&H) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 717 (P&H) #10: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Managing Director negotiated loan Cheque issued by company for repayment of loan .).Pleading .Petitioner may have handled transactions for and on behalf of the company in India .Dishonour of cheque .Liability .). 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 714 (BOMBAY) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 101 (BOMBAY) #11: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S. & Ors. 141-.Directors .There must be a specific allegations and averments regarding the role played by such a partner .Telecommunication Consultation (India) Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .).Petitioners practically had no role to play and they were implicated with intention to put more pressure upon actual offender . (M/s.).S.Process issued against accused quashed.Statutory notice to every person.Cheque dishonoured thereafter Managing Director who had negotiated loan cannot escape liability though he had resigned .C.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 50 (MADRAS) #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Raman & Ors. 138.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited). 1881. Vs State of West Bengal & Anr.) #15: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Bimal Singh Kothari Vs State of Goa & Anr.There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are incharge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company Description should be clear .Bald allegation that such a partner took active part in the day-to-day business affairs of the firm without any material in support thereof is not sufficient .K.Prosecution of person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of the company . 1881.Company .Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.There should be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by a Director in the transaction . 1881. 138. 1881. 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 878 (MADRAS) (DB) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 037 (MADRAS) (DB) #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint against petitioner quashed. 141-.C. 141-.).Agent . 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 442 (DELHI) #8: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.It was he who had taken responsibility to accept loan.Petitioner neither a director. (P.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.Sandhu Vs M/s.141 of the Act . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 075 (DELHI) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (DELHI) #17: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 141-..Liability .Company . including Director. 138. (J. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 506 (CALCUTTA) #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd.This does not bring petitioner within the purview of S. 1881. and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business .).Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for conduct of 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. 141-. 141-. 138. 141-.Snehalatha Vs M/s Victory Leathers). 141-.Director or person incharge and responsible for the conduct of business of company cannot be prosecuted when notice is not issued to him . (Birthe Foster Vs State & Anr.Managing Director resigned . C.)..K. 1881.No reason to interfere. (Mohandas Vs Jayasamudri Trading Co.C...No such averment in complaint . 141-. 141-.Company . (N.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited). 138.. (N. the person accused was in-charge of and responsible for conduct of business of company ..) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .High Court held that there is no clear averment or evidence to show that respondents were incharge or responsible to company for conduct of its business and quashed proceedings against respondents . 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.It is necessary to specifically aver in complaint that at the time offence was committed.Dishonour of cheque . 141-. 141-. (S.When the offender is a company. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr.Partner .Allegations in complaint that respondent accused Nos. 141-.Directors .C. 141-.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.S. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S. 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S.). 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 393 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 110 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 59 (RAJASTHAN) : 2006(6) ALJ (EE) 755 #21: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138.J..).Without such an averment in complaint the requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied . 1881. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 967 (BOMBAY) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #20: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.M. 141-.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 380 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 540 (S. 1881. 138. (S.C. 1881.M. who at the time when the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S.Pharmaceutical Ltd.C.) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.C. 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #19: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C.). (N.Dishonour of cheque .C.Rangachari Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited). 138.A person is entitled to presume that directors of the company are incharge of the affairs of the company .J.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #23: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.The liability of a Director must be determined on the date on which the offence is committed.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI.) #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) .C.Director .Vicarious liability Sufficient averments should be made to make a Director vicariously liable for an offence committed by the Company that he was in charge and responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business . (Kapal Mehra Vs Indusind Enterprises and Finance Ltd..) : 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 206 (S.Director . 141-.).Dishonour of cheque .S. 1881.Complaint qua petitioner quashed.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.C. 138.Company . 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors.) : 2007(3) SCALE 245 : 2007(58) ACC 41 (SC) : 2007(52) AIC 89 : 2007(4) SCC 70 : 2007(3) KLT 672 (SC) #22: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .Company . 138. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S. Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr.An employee of a proprietorship concern cannot be proceeded against u/s 138 of the Act.Director . 141-. 138.Company .).Company . 138.C.C. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 .Such requirement must be read conjointly and not disjunctively. (N.Dishonour of cheque .C.C.If any restrictions on their powers are placed by the memorandum or articles of the company.C.J. every person..Dishonour of cheque . (Hazi Abadullah & Ors. it is for the directors to establish it at the trial. 141-. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.) : AIR 2007 SC 1682 : 2007(2) RCR CRI.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 127 (S. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 177 (S.Pharmaceutical Ltd. 1881. 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 668 (S.SCALE 821 . 138. shall also be deemed to be guilty of the offence along with the company.Only such person is liable if at the time when offence is committed he was incharge and was responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company. (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes).Director .) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 026 (S. Vs Neeta Bhalla & Anr. 875 : 2007(2) RAJ 511 : 2007(5) SCALE 821 . 138.To make a partner liable he must be in charge of and responsible to the firm in the conduct of business of firm.Company .Director .Wahi Vs Shekar Singh & Ors. 2007(58) ACC 474 : 2007(53) AIC 12 : 2007(5) SCC 108 : 2007 CRL.) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 213 (S.2 to 12 were Directors/persons responsible for carrying out business of company and the liability of accused persons was joint and several .) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #2: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Company ..Evidence is not required to be pleaded but there has to be a basic averment as to how one is involved in the alleged crime.Dishonour of cheque .C. 1881.Not liable if he merely derives profits from the company .K..Proprietorship concern . 2448 : 2007(2) KLT 1030 (SC) : 2007 CLC 860 #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.). Dishonour of cheque .Complaint against firm and its five partners Averment in complaint that all the partners were incharge and responsible persons of the firm . 1881. 1881. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.No averment in complaint as to how and in what manner the Director was responsible for the conduct of business of Company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning . 1881.Plea to quash complaint on the ground that there was no proper averment and notice of offence was framed mechanically . the person accused was in charge of.Petitioner denied that he was ever Chairman of Company . 138.Separate notice to Managing Director who signed the cheque on behalf of company is not required . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 466 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 539 (RAJASTHAN) : AIR 2007 NOC 152 (RAJASTHAN) : 2007(1) ALJ(EE) 92 : 2007(2) RECCIVR 553 #7: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.No ground made out to quash the proceedings.. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand).Dishonour of cheque .Complaint must contain requisite averments to bring about a case within the purview of S.Proceedings against Director quashed.K.. Society Ltd. 138.) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 709 (S. 141-. 138...Co-operative Society . 1881. (Kairali Marketing & Processing Co-op. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 597 (S. (G.C.482 Cr. Act then matter has to proceed for expeditious disposal and defence is to be raised before concerned Magistrate and is not to be considered in a petition under S. (Luxmi Devi Vs Puran Chand).) : 2007(2) RCR(CRIMINAL) 571 : 2007(2) RCR(CIVIL) 728 : 2007(2) RAJ 332 : 2007(5) SCALE 353 : AIR 2007 SC 1634 : 2007 CRILJ 2436 : 2007 AIRSCW 2460 : 2007 CLC 978 : 2007(3) AIRKARR 403 : 2007(5) SCC 103 #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. of company and A3 to A6 its Directors .D. and responsible for the conduct of business of the company . its Chairman..Petitioner did not sign the cheque . 138.Prosecution of Company. (V.Vicarious liability .Saxena Vs State).A2 M. 2007(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 001 (S.Secretary signatory of cheque .Proceedings against Managing Director cannot be quashed. 141-. 138.No interference called for. 1881. 141-. 141-. Vs Pullengadi Service Co-op.Society Ltd.Dishonour of Cheque ..C.Saluja Vs IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd.) : JT 2007(2) SC 233 : 2007(2) SCALE 36 : 2007 AIR SCW 656 : 2007(4) MAH LJ 421 : 2007(3) SCC 693 : 2007(58) ACC 1090 : 2007(52) AIC 235 : AIR 2007 SC 912 : 2007 CLC 163 #9: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Prima facie evidence shows that petitioner is not involved in the alleged offence and he cannot be . (Rajkumar Malhotra Vs Bhanwarlal).IDBI a financial institution controlled by Central Govt.Company .Dishonour of Cheque . 141-.Company and its Directors approached complainant for grant of loan ..138 and 141 of N.Company . 1881.I..Company .) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 842 (S.Director nominated by a Central Government or State Government or a Financial Corporation owned or controlled by Central Government or State Government cannot be prosecuted for dishonour of cheque . . 138. (Saroj Kumar Poddar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Director nominated by IDBI as financial assistance extended to company .Company .Nominated Director . 1881.Complaint against company and its Directors .C. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 624 (KERALA) #11: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Proceedings against petitioner quashed.If there are requisite averments in complaint under Ss.. .C.No evidence except affidavit of complainant . (Raghu Lakshminarayanan Vs M/s Fine Tubes).A person can be prosecuted for offence u/s 138 only if at the time the offence was committed he was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of business of the company.Director .Dishonour of cheque . requirement of Section 141 cannot be said to be satisfied.) : 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 641 (S.Specific averment has to be made in complaint that at the time the offence was committed.C. 141-.Company .Dishonour of cheque . 138. which were dishonoured .This averment is an essential requirement of Section 141 of the Act .Held.). 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 590 (DELHI) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 822 (DELHI) : AIR 2007 NOC 262 (DELHI) : 2007(4) AKAR 592 : 2006(132) DLT 498 #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 141-.Authentic and unimpeachable documents placed on record to show that petitioner was not Chairman of Company and inspite of opportunity granted complainant did not controvert the same . 141-.C. even if allegations in complaint are taken to be correct in its entirety the same do not disclose any offence against the Director .).Notice given to company .Company .. 1881. 138.As per loan agreement Company issued three cheques.). Managing Director and Director . 141-. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (DELHI) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Company .Signatory of cheque if ceases to be Secretary on the date when offence was committed cannot be prosecuted u/s 138 of the Act Crucial date for determining date when offence was committed is when cheque is returned by the bank unpaid .P.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 026 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 033 (P&H) #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.S.141 of the Act so as to make some persons other than company vicariously liable therefor.) : 2007(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 243 (S.Without this averment in complaint. ) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 259 (S.P.Firm .) 707 : 2006(1) BOM CRI R 243 : 2006(4) MAH LJ 369 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 141-.Disputed question of fact cannot be gone into in summary proceedings under S.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.) : 2005(3) Civil Court Cases 483 (S. (Sabitha Ramamurthy & Anr. (Suman Madanlal Bora Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.) : AIR 2006 SC 3086 : 2006 AIRSCW 4582 : 2006 CLC 1354 : 2006(6) AIRKARR 31 : 2006(56) ALLCRIC 751 : 2006(3) ALLCRIR 3070 : 2006(46) ALLINDCAS 21 : 2006(6) ALLMR 131 : 2006(3) BANKCLR 228 : 2006 BANKJ 769 : 2006(2) BOMCR(CRI) 720 : 2006(4) CTC 684 : 2006(2) CALLJ 241 : 2006(133) COMCAS 680 : 2006(6) COMLJ 290 SC : 2006(75) CORLA 16 : 2006 CRILR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 773 : 2006 CRILR (SC&MP) SC 773 : 2006(4)CRIMES 67 : 2006(4) CURCC 57 : 2006(4) CURCRIR 8 : 2006(4) JCR SC 138 : 2006(6) KANTLJ 161 : 2006(4) MPHT 212 : 2006 MAD LJ(CRI) 1152 : 2006(35) OCR 503 : 2006(4) PATLJR 195 : 2006(4) RCR 295 : 2006(9) SCALE 212 : 2006(7) SUPREME 168 : 2006(10) SCC 581 : 2007 ALL SCR 190 #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Complaint quashed against petitioner. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd. Vs R.. 1881..Part time Director .C.Managing partner issued cheque to discharge liability of firm Cheque dishonoured . the liability can be only in terms of fine as the company is responsible for the acts of commissions and omissions of the persons working for it.) : 2006(3) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 209 (S.Firm . 1881. 141-. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .held vicariously liable for the alleged offence committed by the Company .Summoning of petitioner quashed. 141-. 1881.Registered society .Petitioner not a signatory of the cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 138.. the person accused was in charge of.C.2003 . 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 541 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 507 (DELHI) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.Secretary is liable u/s 138 of the Act even if he ceases to be its Secretary.Dishonour of cheque . 138.When company is convicted. 141-. 141-.Company . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 181 (P&H) #13: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.). 138.).P.S.).). (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala).Complaint against partners .). 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 356 (BOMBAY) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 590 (BOMBAY) : 2006 CRI LJ 324 (NOC) : AIR 2006 BOM 921 (NOC) : 2006(4) AKAR 539 (NOC) : 2006(2) AIR JHAR HCR 648 (NOC) : 2006(3) AIR BOM HCR 434 : 2006 ALL MR (CRI.P.Dishonour of cheque . (2005(2) Apex Court Judgments 544 (S.C. 1881.Company . 138.B.Radhakrishnan Vs A. 1881.482 Cr. (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd.C. (N.C.).Complaint not disclosing that at the time the offence was committed petitioner was in any way incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 685 (P&H) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 769 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 224 (P&H) : 2007(4) AKAR 554 : 2007(50) ALLINDCAS 322 #12: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.C.Thomas & Anr. (Madan Aggarwal Vs State & Anr.Cheque dishonoured .Cheque issued by Secretary for and on behalf of society . the company is liable for prosecution .Channabasavardhya)..Without there being such a averment in the complaint requirement of S.) #15: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 1881. 1881.6.C... 141-.Proceedings against petitioner quashed.P. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 01 (S.141 cannot be said to be satisfied. (Shekhar Suman Vs Narender & Ors.. 138.).2003 .There should be a clear averment in the complaint that at the time the offence was committed.) : 2006 CRILJ 4602 (S. 138.It is not required that each and every Director of company should be served with notice. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 .Dishonour of cheque .Offence by company .No averment in complaint as to how petitioner was in control of the day-to-day business of the company or was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of commission of offence ..Mehra Vs Raj Kumari Bhalla & Anr. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A.It is not essential to prosecute the firm/company also before the person in charge is sought to be prosecuted.Notice . and responsible for the conduct of business of the company . (Atul Kohli & Anr.Complainant seriously disputed the genuineness of resolution passed by Board of Directors . 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 676 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 452 (P&H) #16: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.If certain crimes are committed by its officials.) : 2005(4) Criminal Court Cases 502 (S.) Followed). 141-.Merely being a director of a company is not sufficient to make the person liable .).Quashing of complaint Quashing of complaint sought on the ground that petitioner ceased to be Director of company with effect from 18.Cheque bounced on 25. 138. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 379 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 431 (KERALA) #18: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company .Criminal liability is not confined to the signatory of the cheque alone but extends to non signatories also provided other conditions in that regard are satisfied. 138. (O.Prosecution of company and directors . 141-.Notice to company . 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . 141-. 138.5. Section 138. CASES 0564 : 1997 CRL.Where the facts necessary for proceeding against an accused are not averred.Complaint filed by power .). 1881.) 0102 : 1997 (2) CIVIL LJ 0535 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0047 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0569 : 1997 (89) COMP. 142-. (Rajesh Bagga Vs State). 1881. (P.For prosecution of Chairman.Held. 1881. 1881. (Raj Kumar Mangla Vs Indo Lowebrau Breweries).Cheque dishonoured issued by company .Dishonour of cheque issued by Company . 141-.Dishonour of cheque . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 161 (KERALA) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 60 (KERALA) : 2005(4) KLT 174 #22: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.No allegation in the complaint that petitioner was responsible to the company or was incharge of the company . Section 138.Cheque dishonoured issued by company Directors of Company cannot be prosecuted in absence of their name appearing in the array of accused in the complaint. 1997 (SUPPL. 1881. 142-. (Balaji Trading Company Vs Kejriwal Paper Ltd. 142-.).Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates).To attract culpable liability a partner must be in charge of and responsible to the firm to the conduct of its business. 138..attorney executed in favour of Accounts Officer of the Company . (Swastik Coaters Vs Deepak Brothers).. 1881. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141.. & Anr.P.Complaint against partners .C. 142-.A. 142-.If such an application is made. 1942 : 1997(1) ALT (CRL. 1881.P.. 1881.company and the accused persons . (Aruna Khurana & Ors.Company .K.Dishonour of cheque .No act or negligence attributed to him . 141-. without authorisation a Director or any similarly situated person cannot maintain a complaint.Complaint by Director . (Everest Advertising Pvt. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 711 (KARNATAKA) #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Company . 141..) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0476 : 1997(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Partnership firm .Summoning order .`Person incharge and responsible' .Ltd.J. 141-. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 803 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 300 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 33 (KER. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (DELHI) #23: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 141.Omnibus allegation that Chairman and Directors of the company were responsible for the conduct of the business of the company and all of them connived in the offence is not sufficient for their prosecution. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (A. Chairman..All the directors arrayed as accused .Sleeping partner . 1881.Company .Held. 142-. 138.Power .Held. 141. 141. 141.Not liable Mere fact that a partner has financial stake in the business of the firm is not sufficient in itself to attract culpable liability under Section 141(1) of the Act . 141.He is the person who is having the full knowledge of the transactions of the Company and he is the right person to speak about the transactions that had taken place between the complainant . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 726 (DELHI) .Firm not a party . Court may pass necessary orders giving notice to the complainant.A.) 0370 : 1997(1) APLJ 423 (H. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 89 (A.Complaint cannot be quashed. 142-.attomey holder . 138. (P.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint qua the petitioner quashed. (Rajesh Bagga Vs State).Verghese Vs Campion Business Associates). 138. Vice Chairman and other Directors of the company . Vs M/s Bareilly Financiers). then it is not 'a complaint of facts which constitute the offence'.) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138.It can be varied or recalled if accused is able to show that no offence is made out from the complaint.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 32 (A.) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (P&H) #4: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..Company . 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 522 (DELHI) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 531 (DELHI) : 2005(124) DLT 353 #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.) CIVIL COURT CASES 69 (P&H) #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mymoonath Beevi Vs State of Kerala).. Section 138.. Section 138.Company . (K.Mohandas Vs M/s Jayasamudri Trading Co.Company .) : 2006(47) ALLINDCAS 676 : 2006(3) KERLJ 326 : 2006(3) KERLT 776 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0371 : 1997 (3) CCR 0117 : 1997 (1) ALD (CRL. 138. 1997 (SUPPL...of . complaint is maintainable.#21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Prosecution of Company.Directors of Company cannot be prosecuted in absence of their name appearing in the array of accused in the complaint. 1881.It is an interim order . Vs State).. 141-. Vice Chairman and other Directors of the Company complaint must show how they are responsible for the conduct of the day-to-day business of the company and how they were actually involved in the conduct of the business of the company relating to the transaction in question or how and on what basis it can be said that it was with the active connivance of these accused that the offence was committed by the company . it is open to the accused to make it clear by filing application fixing responsibility .of . 1881.P. Section 138. C. 142-.C. (M/s. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.Held. a sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor ABC or (3) ABC.Dishonour of cheque .141 of the Act .Summoning order quashed . (ii) The proprietary concern. and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney-holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor.Filed by power of attorney holder .).Notice .Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Complaint signed by power of attorney holder and not by proprietor . 141. (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt. 1881. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 707 (RAJASTHAN) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 844 (RAJASTHAN) #11: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. Corp. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 668 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 648 (ALLAHABAD) #1: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Power of attorney given by one of the Directors .I..Sworn statement of attorney holder . 142-. sole proprietor of M/s XYZ represented by his Attorney Holder DEF or (4) M/s XYZ..Dishonour of cheque . (T. Section 138.Power of attorney holder can be examined as the complainant when he is personally aware of the transactions. 1881.).In a criminal complaint u/s. 1881. Section 138. (M/s.).Proprietorship concern .ABC represented by his Attorney Holder Mr.. 1881. Section 138. Section 138.P.Stake .. (M/s. (1) ABC.Matter remitted for reconsideration. and the complaint is signed by the attorney holder on behalf of the payee.Company . a proprietary concern of Mr.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.P.On such complaint no process could have been issued and no conviction could have been imposed.).Accused borrowed a sum of Rs.Complaint can be filing by describing viz. 142-. 142-. (Bhagirath Arya Vs State of U. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 765 (BOMBAY) #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint must be filed by a person authorized by a resolution of the board of directors or by articles of association of the company.Power of Attorney holder .Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. sole proprietor of M/s XYZ or (2) M/s XYZ. Section 138.Complaint . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S.). Section 138.Power of attorney holder .C. Section 138.Non examination of the concerned official who deposed in support of the complainant .one lakh . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S. 142-.Dishonour of cheque . Vs State of U. (M/s.Dishonour of cheque .No averment as to how and in what manner the promoter and controller is responsible for the conduct of the business of the company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning Applicant had not issued cheque in question to the complainant .Proprietorship concern .Complaint u/s..) #10: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Reason stated negotiations were going on . 142-. complaint is duly filed by the payee. represented by its sole proprietor. describing himself as the sole proprietor of the `payee'.Accused to raise this issue at the time of framing of charge.Company .Held.Held.Summoning order quashed.Proprietorship concern . (Ajay Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan).Rishabh Nath & Ors. 142-.Complaint silent as to first notice .Complaint can by filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern. averments not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of S.Held.C.Summoning order on basis of Affidavit . 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 142-.) #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.138 of NI Act it is permissible to lodge the complaint in the name of the proprietary concern itself.Proprietorship concerned . Infrastructure (Fina) Vs Housing And Urban Dev.138 of the Act . Section 138.Company . complaint is not filed by the company as required u/s 142(a) .No averment as to how appellant is responsible for dishonour of cheque .). (Chicho Ursula D'Souza Vs Goa Plast Pvt. (M/s.C. Section 138.Dishonour of cheque . 142-. (M/s.Condonation Delay of thirteen months .Proprietorship concern . 1881.) #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 1881..). 1881.Complaint filed by proprietorship firm through power of attorney holder . 1881.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.Power of attorney holder .Company .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .) #9: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint u/s 138 of the Act .).C. Section 138..Dishonour of cheque .Delay . & Ors. describing itself as a sole proprietary concern. Section 138.Two notices served . 142-. 1881.)..DEF. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (S..Ltd. Section 138..Dishonour of cheque .).Ltd.Shankar Finance & Investments Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. 142-... complaint can be filed by payee through power of attorney holder and there is no necessity for the complainant to file the complaint in person. 1881.#7: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-.) #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Averment that applicant is the promoter and controller of the company . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (ALLAHABAD) #3: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 347 (DELHI) #2: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 142-. 1897 . 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 203 (KARNATAKA) #17: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). (Chandra Babu Vs Remani). 1881.. (Mamatadevi Prafullakumar Bhansali Vs Pushpadevi Kailashkumar Agrawal & Anr.. 1881.P. Section 138.For an offence u/s 138 of the Act complainant is required to prove the facts constituting the cause of action therefor .President on behalf of Society can file complaint. (Sajjan Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.). 142-. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802 #21: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138.S.). 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 214 (MADRAS) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 324 (MADRAS) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.1990 sent on 11. 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 399 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (P&H) #18: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint .) : AIR 2006 SC 1288 : 2006 AIR SCW 1137 : 2006(2) ALLCJ 1001 : 2006(3) ALLCRILR 163 : 2006(4) ALLINDCAS 265 : 2006(2) ALLMR 140 : 2006(2) ALLWC 1749 : 2006(1) ANDHLD 653 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 632 : 2006(2) BANKCAS 515 : 2006 BANKJ 1 : 2006(3) BOMCR 98 : 2006(2) CTC 57 : 2006(130) COMCS 390 : 2006(4) COMLJ 419 SC : 2006(72) COR LA 55 : 2006 CRLLR (SC MAH GUJ) SC 484 : 2006 CRLLR (SC&MP) SC 484 : 2006(2) CURCC 71 : 2006(1) CUR CRIR 178 : 2006(2) EAST CRIC 162 : 2006(2) ICC 708 : ILR (KANT #19: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.7.) 3075 #20: PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0001 : 2005(2) MAH LJ 1003 : 2002 ALL MR (CRI.Issuance of process Provision of S.).C. (Musaraf Hossain Khan Vs Bhagheeratha Engg.) : 2008(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 076 (S. 1881.Complaint filed in a Court within jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court and Writ petition thereagainst filed in High Court of Kerala .Delay .L. Section 138..Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M. 1881. Section 138. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr. Vs M/s.Delay . 1881.Payments were obviously required to be made within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court where either the contract had been entered into or where payment was to be made .) : AIR 2008 SC 3086 #13: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint ...) : 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 585 (S. (Maharaja Developers & Anr.C. the day from which such period is to be reckoned shall be excluded and similar provision has been made in Section 12 (2) for appeal etc.Limitation .) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. & Ors.Limitation Act.C.Cannot be condoned without notice to accused..Agreement entered into within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court .)..Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .7..Territorial jurisdiction . Section 138.C.1990 .quite heavy . 1881. Section 138.Held.General Clauses Act.Seenivasan). Ltd.Dishonour of cheque .Can file complaint on account of dishonour of cheque in the name of the principal. (S. (Subodh S. 145-. 142-.C. 142-.Shah & Anr. applies.However.C.Delay condoned.J. 1881.1990 then date 12.Co-operative Society .In computing the period of limitation in any suit etc.C. 142.7.Dishonour of cheque . Kerala High Court has no jurisdiction in the matter as no part of cause of action arose within its jurisdiction. 1897..Complaint .) : 2006 CRILJ 1683 (S.Condonation Insertion of proviso to S.. Section 12 (2) .Dishonour of cheque .Same principle is also incorporated in Section 9 of the General Clauses Act. Section 138.Limitation .2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.Amendment in provision of S. 1881.Eastern Roadways Pvt. 1881. 142-.142 of the Act if other conditions in the sections are satisfied. (Madan Lal Verma Vs A. 1963. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels).). 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 535 (GUJARAT) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (BOMBAY) : 2005(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 562 (BOMBAY) : 2005(2) BCR (CRI. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI. 142-.1990 is to be excluded and the accused .Notice dated 9.Rajaram Vs S. Section 138.Even if it is taken that it was served on 12.Dishonour of cheque . . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 011 (S.Rules of limitation Act and General clauses Act apply under Negotiable Instrument Act.Power of attorney holder .142 of the Act is retrospective in nature and is applicable to pending cases.) : 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 194 (S.Legal representative of the payee or holder in due course can file a complaint u/s 138 read with S. Section 138.Ranga). 142. 53-.Complaint beyond period of limitation Court can take cognizance on sufficient cause .142(b) in 2002 confers a jurisdiction upon the Court to condone the delay . 142-. 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 107 (S.Dishonour of cheque . insertion of the proviso is not retrospective in nature. (Kumudben Jayantilal Mistry Vs State of Gujarat & Anr.200 Cr.7.Dishonour of cheque . 142-.Project for which the supply of stone chips and transportation was to be carried out was also within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court . 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 641 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 12 (KERALA) #15: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 9 .Ltd.Complainant has given sufficient reasons for condoning the delay and he had also taken steps to settle the matter in the presence of Ex-President of Kammavar Sangam . Section 138. Complaint .1998 .Complaint filed on 8.) #23: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.1990 .Duly constituted power of attorney can file complaint .4.Prasad). 142. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 586 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0075 #6: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cause of action must restrict itself to time whereas jurisdiction is a situs.Venkataramanaiah Vs Sillakollu Venkateswarlu & Anr. CASES 0013 : 1999 CRI LJ 1219 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.H..Dishonour of cheque . 1881.Second complaint filed on failure to make payment inspite of notice .) 844 : 2005 DGLS 389 #25: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Raibhagi Firm).Fine .1990 is well within time.Power of attorney holder . (Nemichand Swaroopchand Shaha Vs M/s T.Pleader in whose favour Vakalatnama is executed is duly competent to appear for the complainant in the case and to conduct.Jurisdiction and cause of action .8.1990 .Not barred by limitation. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (P&H) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 768 (P&H) : 2005 CRI LJ 2396 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 584 : 2005(34) ALL IND CAS 116 : 2006(1) BANK CLR 548 : 2005(4) BANK CAS 120 : 2006 BANK J 510 : 2005(3) CUR CRI R 209 : 2005(2) ICC 802 #22: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (G.. 138. (M/s..J.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque again presented and again dishonoured .was required to make the payment upto 27.Cheque can be presented any number of times within its validity but it will not give fresh cause of action every time .Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant. Section 138..C. 142-. 142-. 142-.There is no specific bar under the provisions of S.Cognizance taken . 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 345 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 705 (RAJASTHAN) : 2005(4) ALL INDIA CRI LR 77 : AIR 2007 NOC 286 (RAJ.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .5.Court rejected recall petition .C. 1881.Police report .Limitation .Cognizance can only be taken upon a complaint Magistrate cannot take cognizance on police report. 1881. 142-. (Rajeev Indani Vs D. complaint is maintainable . 138. 138.Complaint . 142-.Magistrate can however award compensation to any extent when sentence of fine is not imposed.) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 742 (S..2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM. 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 322 (DELHI) : 2002(1) ISJ (BANKING) .1998 .Cause of action accrues on 28.1998 .Directors .7. (M/s Prem Cashew Industries Vs Zen Pareo).) : 1999(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 138.) #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cause of action accrues only when notice is given and drawer fails to make the payment .There is no requirement of law that complaint must be signed and presented by the complainant himself .. (M/s A.Cause of action arises only once.. 142-.7.Where allegations made against directors prima facie constitute offence. 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 286 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0536 #4: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (A.3.Order set aside . 138.Fine equivalent to amount of cheque imposed .) 0156 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.142 of the Act for filing a complaint by the special power of attorney. Section 138. 1881. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (S.On request of complainant Court returned the cheque as complainant pleaded that on verification he ascertained that the accused did not receive the notice personally .Cause of action arose on 11.Magistrate not competent to impose fine exceeding Rs. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 581 (KARNATAKA) : 2002 (2) ISJ (BANKING) 0504 #3: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Veerendra Haggade).). 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 674 (A.P.Complaint .) : 2005(2) REC CRI R 876 : 2005(4) SCJ 576 : 2005(4) SCC 417 : 2005 SCC(CRI.7. prosecute or defend the same.1990 is to be excluded for counting period of one month .).Distinction . Vs Dinesh Ganeshmal Shah).Date 28. (Hotline Shares and Securities Ltd.).Pram Chand Vijay Kumar Vs Yash Pal Singh & Anr.Notice given on 26.It is for a particular director to show that he was not incharge of affairs of company when offence alleged was committed. 142-.Cause of action is something quite different from jurisdiction . (Rakesh Raja Vs Naru Mohammed Sheikh).M. 145-.) 1153 : JT 2005(5) SC 318 : 2005(2) BOM CR (CRI.P.Presumption of service of first notice sent by registered post is available to the complainant and not to the opposite party and moreover accused himself has stated that he did not receive the notice which was conceded to by the complainant ..Plea of accused that he did not receive notice .Not signed by complainant but signed by counsel . Section 138. 1881. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI. 142-. 1881. & Ors.Gangadhar Vs K.).) 0211 : 1999 (97) COMP. 142-.Company .. Section 138. 1881.) : 2005(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 679 (S.C.. (Gian Singh Vs Oswal Steels).5000/.Held. 138. (Maharaja Developers & Anr. 1881.. 1881.. 2001(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 146 (A. since no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant on the first dishonour of cheque as such subsequent complaint is maintainable. 1881. 2005(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 436 (ORISSA) #24: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Agencies Vs United Phosphorus Ltd.Complaint filed on 27.L. 1973.) 0049 : 1997 (2) CUR CRI R 0793 : 1997 (2) ANDH LD 0738 : 1996 (2) LS AP 0532 #16: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) 33 : 2001(1) RCR (CR) 134 (DELHI) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-. 1881. 142-.C. (Pallavi Traders Vs Petro Lubes).P. 1881.Held.138 of the Act then the complaint cannot be thrown or quashed at the threshold. (M.Power of attorney . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 16 (GUJARAT) : 1998 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (GUJARAT) 0177 : 1999 (1) CIVIL LJ 0210 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.) 0407 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0122 : 1999 (96) COMP.Not a ground to quash criminal proceedings against drawer .200) (Harihara Iyer Vs State of Kerala). 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 553 (P&H) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0455 : 1999 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0609 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. (Anchor Capitals of India Ltd. (Steel Authority of India.) 0597 : 1997 (2) BANKING CASES 0604 : 1999 (96) COMP.J.Cause of action for initiation of prosecution arises only once that is on failure to pay money by drawer after demand notice .Complaint shall be deemed to be filed when represented with signatures Complaint when represented was not within time of accrual of cause of action . 142-.Dispensation of taking sworn statement will be in contravention of S. 1881. (Criminal Procedure Code.Complaint is not maintainable as the payee as lost every right over the cheque by endorsing the same in favour of third party. 138.L.) 0058 #10: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. & Anr. if the complaint and its accompaniments prima facie show the ingredients of S.Absence of averment in complaint that cheque was issued towards the discharge of whole or any part of debt or any liability .Dishonoured . 1881.. hence quashed.A.Impugned order of Magistrate wholly illegal and not at all sustainable. 142-.Authority letter did not state that payee would be bound by the acts of her husband . 1881.. S.P.Held.Cheque . (Criminal Procedure Code.Validity . 142-.. 1881. 138. 138.Examination of the complainant is necessary It is incumbent on the Magistrate taking cognizance on a complaint to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses present. 1973. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 360 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0268 : 2000(1) KLT 100 : 2001 BANK J 633 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 619 (MADRAS) #9: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0018 : 1997 APLJ (CRL.). 142-. 138. L.Cheque dishonoured Complaint filed by original payee . 1881.J. CASES 0462 : 1999(3) CRIMES 621 (P&H) #14: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Criminal liability of drawer is not obliterated by merger of companies. 3372 #11: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. regarding limitation not applicable.Complaint . the general provisions of S.Abdul Khuthoos Vs M/s Ganesh & Coy Oil Mills).Complaint under S.Complainant company ceased to exist on its merger with another company .Cannot be condoned u/s 5 Limitation Act Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed beyond one month from the date of accrual of cause of action. (Sannidhi Agencies Vs Brooke Bond Lipton India Limited).Aggarwal Vs Rakesh Aggarwal). 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 45 (ALLAHABAD) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (ALLAHABAD) 0441 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 695 (RAJASTHAN) : 1999 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (RAJASTHAN) 0535 : 1999 (4) RCR (CRL..Each presentation and dishonour does not give rise to fresh cause of action but only a fresh right .).Dishonour of cheque . L.P.This being a special provision.In the instant case it is clear from the material on record that there was sufficient material to proceed against the persons who were declined to be summoned .Payee authorising her husband through a letter to file complaint on her behalf . S. 138. 1881.0103 : 2001 ALL MR (CRL. 1348 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL.Proceedings quashed. (Meeta Rai Vs Gulshan Mahajan).) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0486 : 1997 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A.Complaint without signatures . 138.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0079 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0045 : 1997 (89) COMP. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 277 (KARNATAKA) : 2003 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0421 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Subhash Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan).C.. 138..Cheque .Dishonour of cheque . (H.) 0040 : 1999 CRL.Delay in filing complaint . 142-.200 Cr.Cheque endorsed in favour of a third party . authority letter could not be equated with General or Special Power of Attorney .Magistrate summoning some accused persons and declining to summon others . 138.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint with signatures of complainant represented .Complaint not property instituted.. CASES 0123 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0545 : 1997 CRL.) 0678 #15: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Ghaziabad Vs Harbhajan Singh & Ors. CASES 0481 : 1998 (4) CRIMES 0532 #12: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Pleading . not necessary to go in detailed discussion of merits or demerits of case . 142-. 142-.Complaint returned .) 0383 : 1999 (1) CHANDIGARH CRL. if any. to satisfy himself as to the veracity of the complainant . 142-. 138.142 .Limitation to file complaint is one month from accrual of cause of action .468)..P.. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 195 (A. 1881.At stage of issuing process. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 487 (A. CASES 0531 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL. 138.Limitation .Once notice under Section 138 is issued and drawee fails to initiate prosecution within time the right to initiate proceedings u/s .Can be presented any number of times during period of its validity ..468 Cr. . 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.1995 . (Itty Mathew Vs Ramani). (Ponnappan Vs Sibi). 142-. 142-.) 1471 : 1998(2) JCC 91 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (C.) 0444 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0313 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0519 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL...9. L. CASES 0423 : 1999 (1) CRIMES 0293 : 1998 CRL..) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 506 (S. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 222 (KARNATAKA) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0703 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0577 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 589 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0012 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL.C.C.138 and 142 are special provisions and exclude the operation of Sections 4 to 24 of Limitation Act.Dishonour of cheque . 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998(2) CTC 462 : 1998 (2) KLT 0765 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1988 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1998(6) SCC 514 : 1998 SCC(CRI.) : 1998(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 267 (S. (Mandhadi Ramachandra Reddy Vs Gopume Reddy Ram Reddy).Dishonour of cheque .C. 142-.Computing period of limitation . 1881.Kalegouda Vs K.Held.Complaint . CASES 0571 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0151 : 1997 CRL.Complaint filed before expiry of 15 days is not maintainable. L. 1881. 3539 : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL. 138.) 0574 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0429 : 1998 (93) COMP.Surya Prabhavathi Vs Nekkanti Subrahmanyeswara Rao).Cheque issued by H and dishonoured . (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran)..) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. 142-..) 0086 #18: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Again after fresh presentation of cheque and dishonour and notice thereon prosecution is not permissible. 1881. 138.Cause of action . 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 374 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0181 : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0016 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.In the instant case notice served on accused on 29.P.Complaint cannot be lodged thereafter . L.) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP. (G.11. (Viswanadhan Vs Surendran).Magistrate can accept the complaint.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.Provision contemplates punishment only against the drawer of the cheque but not others.Delay . 142-.J. L.C.J.138 will be forfeited . Vs M/s India Securities Ltd.C.J. 4066 : 1998 (3) CCR 0238 : 1998 (2) KLT 0490 : 1998 MAH LJ 0365 : AIR 1998 SC 3043 : 1998 (2) SLJ 1465 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0422 : 1998 CCLR 0368 : 1999 SCC (CRI) 329 : 1999(3) SCC 1 . 2402 #25: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0071 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0419 : 1998 CRL. . 142-.Complaint against H and his wife as the loan was for purchase of car in the name of wife .Arises only on failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of notice .) 0398 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0168 : 1998 (93) COMP. 1881.J. 3553 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0077 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0238 : 1998 CRL. 142-. 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S.J.) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.Does not constitute taking cognizance of the offence. complaint filed is within time as 15 days notice period expired on 14th October and cause of action for filing complaint would arise from 15th October as such 15th October is to be excluded for counting the period of one month.P. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 113 (A.200 Cr.Cannot be condoned under any provision of law Period prescribed under the Act is not the period as such..) 0161 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL.P.Jurisdiction .1995 and complaint filed on 15.. 142-. 138.Complaint to be filed within period of limitation prescribed u/s 142 . has also got jurisdiction to entertain a complaint.Complaint against wife quashed . L. 1998(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 202 (S. (M/s Saketh India Ltd. (Rajan George Vs State of Kerala).C. L.) 0303 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0263 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0788 : 1998 (91) COMP. 138.When filed on the last day of limitation by a pleader in the absence of the complainant . (Sadanandan Bhadran Vs Madhavan Sunil Kumar).).C.) 0064 #19: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0347 : 1997 (3) APLJ 0018 (SN) #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Court cannot condone delay as the very jurisdiction of Court to take cognizance is barred .Day on which cause of action arises is to be excluded .Condonation . & Ors.Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque is dishonoured has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0172 : 1998 (2) CIVIL LJ 0075 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL. CASES 0223 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0543 #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138. 138. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 617 (A.) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0438 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. 1881. L. 1881.Limitation .Sadashivappa)..) 0090 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0691 : 1998 (94) COMP.Provisions of Ss.J.Adjournment of complaint to some other date to examine the complainant under S. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 659 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0010 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL. CASES 0812 : 1998 (3) CRIMES 0217 : 1998 CRL..) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0761 : 1999(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S. 138. 142-.Delay . 4275 : 1997 (2) ALT (CRL. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 416 (KERALA) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0633 : 1998 (3) CIVIL LJ 0839 : 1998 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881. 1881.Court within whose jurisdiction the cheque was presented for encashment. 3553 #23: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J. 138. but is a condition precedent as such and that period cannot be extended by any means. Cause of action would arise if no payment is made by the drawer within 15 days of receipt of notice .) 0816 : 1998 CRL. 138. (G.Presented through bank at Chandigarh . L. Vs Vinod Bhai Mohan Bhai Patel).Cheque dishonoured . 1881. 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278 #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.Cheque . 138.).) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP. (Aruna Bai Vs Surendra Babu).1992 .. 142-. 138. IPC alleging that cheque by merely signing it was given whereas name and amount was filled by the payee himself .. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales). CASES 0826 : 1997 CRL. 1881.Cheque issued drawn on Bank at place `S' ..Jurisdiction .J. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.Cause of action arises only on issuance of notice and non payment within 15 days . (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.4..) 0816 : 1998 CRL. 138.) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.Continuing offence from 16th day of receipt of demand by drawer if amount remains unpaid . 138.Cheque can be presented to Bank for collection any number of times during its validity and last dishonour could be treated as cause of action to serve notice on drawer and file complaint under Section 138 .138. multiple or successive complaints in respect of same cheque .Dishonour of cheque . 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 600 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0811 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.Cheque drawn up at Dena Bank. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 338 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) (D.Repeated. 1274 : 1997 (1) ALT (CRL. 142-.) 0510 #2: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138.1992 .6. 138. 142-..Held. 138.J.).. (United India Phosphorous Ltd. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (GUJARAT) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0085 : 1997 (89) COMP.1992 and the complaint has to be tiled within one month from 10. 1881. complaint is tiled within time as cause of action to tile the complaint arose on 9.) CIVIL COURT CASES 536 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997 (1) BANKING CASES 0217 : 1998 (94) COMP.However.Dishonour of cheque .) CIVIL COURT CASES 457 (BOMBAY) #5: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.But only one complaint is maintainable .Complaint tiled on 3..) 0853 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL. 1904 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.Not permissible.Complaint at Chandigarh is maintaianble. 1881. CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #7: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice sent on 23.).1992. 138. 142-.When notice is issued and payment is not made offence stands committed once for all and complaint has to be filed within a month from the date on which cause of action accrued. (Kishan Lal Vs Krishna Sales). 138..B.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Cheque dishonoured . 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : 1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #11: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-. 1881.).5.Dishonour of cheque .) CIVIL COURT CASES 239 (P&H) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0844 : 1997 (3) RCR (CRL.Question whether cheque is a forged one cannot be considered in a separate criminal proceeding .Held. 142-. (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co. 1881.).Can be presented any number of times within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity. 138.Payee has to give notice to drawer within 15 days of receipt of information from Bank demanding payment . 1881.Jurisdiction .#1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.) 0513 : 1995 (2) BCLR 0582 : 1996 BJ 0234 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0538 : 1995 CRL.Fulfilment of these ingredients under Ss.) 0239 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0052 : 1998 (93) COMP. 1881. courts at place `J' has jurisdiction to try the offence.Service of notice is essential to constitution the offence.. 142-. if once payee sends notice demanding payment from drawer of cheque then he loses his right to present the cheque again to Bank... 142-. 1997 (SUPPL. 142-. (Meltro Enterprises Vs Ramesh Chander).B.Cheque . New Delhi . (Aashirwad Enterprises Vs Sambhar Salts Ltd.J. 1881.Ekantappa Vs State of Karnataka & Anr.Cheque presented for collection at place `J' .Counter complaint is a clear abuse of the process of law .Complaint and civil suit pending . L.1992 received on 25.5. 142-. CASES 0786 : 1996 (3) RLW 0604 : 1996 RCC 0508 #6: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Harshivinder Singh Vs M/s Bhagat Trading Co. CASES 0764 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Quashment of counter complaint sought .Proceedings of counter complaint quashed.Dishonoured . 142-.Complaint .4.) 0688 #10: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1997(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 647 (RAJASTHAN) : . 142 is sine qua non for institution of complaint. 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 291 (KARNATAKA) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0528 : 1995 (3) RCR (CRL.Criminal case is not to be stayed till disposal of suit on the ground that unconditional leave to defend the suit is granted. 1997 (SUPPL.Mere dishonour of cheque does not constitute offence under Section 138 . (Saral Enterprises Vs Ashok Thaper). 1997 (SUPPL.Counter complaint by drawer of cheque u/ss 409. which ever is earlier .J.Notice .Payee or any person authorised by the payee can make a complaint. 420 & 463 etc. L. 0345 : 1998 (35) BANK LJ 0278 #9: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1997 (SUPPL.) 0638 #4: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. there is no deficiency in complaint.6..Complainant not examined on oath by Magistrate but allowed the Advocate to examine him .J. 1881.Complaint .It is violative of S. 138. 138. 1881.. 142-.200 . 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #19: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP..Held.No illegality .. L.) 0671 : 1998 (1) BANKING CASES 0501 : 1997 CRL.) 0337 : 1997(1) MAD LW (CRI) 337 #21: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-. 142-.Claim satisfied as the amount stood paid ..S.Date given in notice which has been exhibited . CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL.Notice Dt.Defect is.) 0412 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0092 : 1995 (1) . (Sardar Singh Vs Karam Singh).Complaint is maintainable. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. (Konark Cables Vs Premier Engineering & Electricals).Three cheques issued ..Agreement denied by the complainant . Vs M/s. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 539 (J&K) : 1998 ISJ (BANKING) 0154 : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (J&K) 0456 : 1997 (4) RCR (CRL. however curable.Selvamani).Presented at Amritsar and dishonoured .Non payment of the balance amount in time .Notice . at the stage of deciding whether process is to be issued or not Magistrate is not required to assess the material on record minutely High Court cannot quash the proceedings on this ground. 1881. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.6.Jurisdiction .) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. 138.Payee or holder in due course can only file a complaint. L.Dishonour of cheque .On the acknowledgement date mentioned as 13.Cause of action accrues only on failure to make the payment within fifteen days of the service of notice. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti). 138.) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP. 142-.If the notice is dispatched on 13. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. 138. L. 1881. 1881. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 140 (DELHI) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0435 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.6 . 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 68 (P&H) : 1996 (1) RCR (CRL.Cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds . 1881.Cheque can be presented any number of times within its period of validity or within a period of six months from the date of issuance and on each occasion when the cheque is dishonoured the petitioner gets a fresh cause of action to file complaint and the limitation would be computed from that point of time. 138.Parties agreeing to cancel the agreement and refund the amount received . 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 19 (KARNATAKA) : 1994 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0486 : 1995 (1) CIVIL LJ 0348 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.Jurisdiction of Court at Amritsar challenged an the plea that property is situated at Delhi.1992 then it is beyond 15 days of intimation of dishonour .J.J. 142-. CASES 0544 : 1996 (2) CRIMES 0557 #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.10. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL. 1881.Dishonour of cheque .. (M/s. 142-..) 0628 : 1995 (1) BANKING CASES 0097 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0233 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0133 : 1998 (92) COMP.Date of return of cheque by Bank not mentioned in complaint . 3751 #13: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti). (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti). 1995(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 620 (P&H) #16: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.1992 .Notice not issued Cheque presented again .Held.J.Verma Plywood Company). 1881. L. 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #17: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Quashing of complaint declined as these are disputed facts and the petitioner/accused may approach the Court at Amritsar for dropping proceedings. CASES 0337 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 0707 : 1995 CRL.Complaint u/s 138 quashed. L. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 246 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0250 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0145 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0845 #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. 138.15 days period . 142-. (Sudesh Kumar Sharma Vs K.. CASES 0806 : 1994 (4) CCR 2374 : 1994 (1) LW (CRL. & Construction Ltd.1997(3) REC CRI R 0221 #12: JAMMU & KASHMIR HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 142-. (Hardip Singh Vs Gurnam Singh Randhawa). 0715 : ILR 1994 KARNATKA 2689 #20: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Chahal Engg. (Ishwari Devi Vs State of Punjab). (Mallappa Sangappa Desai Vs Laxamanappa Bassappa Whoti). cheques were issued at Delhi and parties had agreed that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction .. 142-. 138.Agreement to sell .) 0798 : 1997 (88) COMP. 142-. 138.J.First day of receipt of notice has to be excluded. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 118 (MADRAS) : 1995 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0291 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0334 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0347 : 1995 (86) COMP. 142-.Case restored.5). 138. CASES 0381 : 1990 DRJ 0029 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. 142-.Moudgil Carpets & Rugs & Ors.) 0357 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0683 : 1993 (3) SLJ 2827 #4: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint should contain allegations of the . 138. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.by S.A power of attorney holder of a payee or a holder in due course can make a complaint u/s 142 of the Act.C. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 321 (KERALA) : 1995(3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0125 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 480 (A. 000/. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 248 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0722 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0314 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0159 : 1997 (88) COMP. 1881. nor the delay condoned u/s 5 of the Limitation Act .C.B. (B. 142-.Court can take cognizance of offence if allegations In complaint show that complainant has complied with provisions of Ss. 1881... (Hamsa Vs Ibrahim).Complaint filed on that basis .437.138 not fulfilled . (Umesh Kumar Vs M/s.P.) 0094 : 1995(2) CRIMES 0795 : 1996 CRL.... complaint cannot be quashed. 1881.P.Principal is liable as the principal is always bound by the act of his or her attorney so long the attorney does not exceed his right .BCLR 0409 : 1995 (82) COMP. 1881.Held. LJ 1384 (KER. CASES 0800 : 1994(1) CRIMES 0395 : ILR 1994 (1) KERALA 0622 #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.In the instant case no material is on record to hold that attorney acted beyond his power . 1881. 1881.Case taken up in absence of parties or their counsel as it was declared holiday ..Dishonour of cheque .5.can be imposed by Judicial Magistrate First Class or Metropolitan Magistrate if situation so warrants even if the power of court to impose fine is limited only upto Rs.Essential requirements of clause (b) & (c) of the proviso to S. Vs Union of India & Ors.It is open to the payee or holder in due course to present the cheque for payment even after his failure to file a complaint on the basis of the first cause of action accrued to him.Order set aside .P. L. 142-. 0638 : 1995(1) ALT (CRL.) (D. (Maheshwari Proteins Ltd. 142-. (S.Pushpa Sharma Vs Raj Kumar Sharma).Corporation). 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 425 (MADRAS) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0644 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0578 : 1994 CC RULINGS 0561 #5: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Notice not issued to the parties . 142-.) 0332 : 1995 (1) ALT 0468 : 1995 (1) ALD 0393 #25: CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1973.Kiran Vs L.. 138.C. 138.Cannot be said that complainant failed to appear . 138.). 138. 1995(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 400 (KERALA) : 1995(1) KLT 259 : 1995 CRL. (Cr.. CASES 0452 : 1996 BJ 0045 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL. (M/s.Six months period shall be calculated from the date which the cheque bears.Private complaint be made . 138.Dismissed for default .Dishonour of cheque .138 and 142 ...Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. Vs M/s. (Lakshmanan Vs Sivarama Krishnan). 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 391 (P&H) : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL. 142-. 1881.) 0420 : 1995 AIHC 2962 : 1995(1) KLT 350 #23: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Proper for trial court to have adjourned the case for giving notice .) : 1996(2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (A. 1881.C.Mohan Krishna & Ors.P) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. S.. 1881.Correctness of defence plea in reply notice to be considered only at the trial and not at the time of taking cognizance of offence-Defence theory available in documents filed need not be mentioned in complaint.) 0235 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0080 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0019 : 1994 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. 000/. 138. 142-.Limitation .Can neither be extended u/s 473 Cr.) 0716 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0019 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0145 : 1998 (92) COMP. 1997(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 276 (CALCUTTA) : 1996(3) ALL INDIA CRI LR 558 : 1997(2) CCR 313 : 1997(1) BANKING CASES 480 : 1998(2) REC CIR R 474 #1: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Limitation Act.Complaint is maintainable .). 1963.Cheque dishonoured for the second time .J. 1881.A complaint filed beyond one month of the date on which the cause of action has arisen is barred and the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence alleged in the complaint. 142-.29 Cr. S. (Kunhimuhammed Vs Khadeeja).Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make payment and that can be the place where the Bank to which the cheque was issued is located . CASES 0147 : 1994 (3) CRIMES 1086 : 1994 (56) DLT 0066 #22: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Aildas & Company & Ors.The Court within whose jurisdiction any of the above said places falls has got jurisdiction to try the offence.Fine in excess of Rs.) 0258 #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Smt.Complaint and the summoning order quashed. 142-.It can also be the place where the cheque was issued or delivered ..Dishonour of cheque . 142-. 138.Post dated cheque .).Cheque issued by the attorney .Jurisdiction . 138. 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 384 (P&H) : 1994 (1) RCR (CRL. 1881.P. CASES 0610 : 1996 (1) CRIMES 0019 : 1995 (2) ALT (CRL.5.) #24: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Dishonour of cheque . (Sova Mukherjee Vs Rajiv Mehra). 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (DELHI) : 1995 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (DELHI) 0142 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL. Vs State-Delhi Administration). ) 0570 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0572 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0670 : 1994 (3) CHANDIGARH CRL.138 of the act. (Madhavan Vs Addl.J. L.Dishonour ... 138. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 4 (A.) 0329 : 1994 (2) BANKING CASES 0030 : 1997 (89) COMP. i.Primarily to be determined by the averments contained in the complaint . 142-. 1881.Complaint returned for some omission and Court did not specify time for compliance of that omission .Jurisdiction .Dishonour of cheque .Application u/s482 can be entertained by the High Court only if prima facie case is not made out on the allegations in complaint .Delay in filing complaint .Cheque . 0674 : 1993 (2) KLT 1027 : 1994 (1) APLJ 0763 #8: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. (Cr..5. 1881. 138. 138.P) #13: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L.) 0343 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0036 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0221 : 1991 (2) BCLR 0215 : 1992 (73) COMP.Complaint filed before this period is not maintainable. Vs State of Karnataka). 1751 : 1993(6) OCR 242 #14: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. L. 142-. 138. (Mohinder Singh Vs Rattan Lal Wadhwa & Ors. 138.Inherent power cannot be invoked to quash proceedings on complaint requiring enquiry and trial. 138. 142-.Holder of cheque has to file a complaint before Magistrate.J. (Sahadevan Vs Sreedharan). 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 681 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0650 : 1994 (3) RCR (CRL.Cause of action . 1881..). 1881.C.. (Muraleedharan Vs Pareed).Fine . 0543 : 1993 (2) ALT (CRL. CASES 0560 : 1992 BJ 0520 : 1991 (2) CRIMES 0093 : 1991 CRL. Vs M/s. (Playwood House Vs Wood Craft Products Ltd.ingredients of the offence. 000/-for offence u/s.Dishonour of cheque .. 1992 CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (KERALA) : 1992(1) KLT 59 #16: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Complaint if represented after limitation cannot be held to be barred.) 0604 : 1993 MWN 0140 #15: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 0311 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0581 : 1994 (1) BCLR 0182 : 1997 (88) COMP.Mohan & Anr.Complaint filed at place `T' where transaction creating liability had taken place .).Non mention of defence theory in complaint not a ground for entertaining such application-It is not for High Court to go into rival contentions . 1994(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 278 (MADRAS) : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0467 #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Jurisdiction .P. CASES 0565 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0434 : 1994 CRL.Cheque dishonoured .Jurisdiction .) CIVIL COURT CASES 320 (KERALA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1993 (2) BANKING CASES 0135 : 1993 (82) COMP. 1973. 142-.Complaint and summoning order quashed. (Rahmathullah Vs Ramalingam). CASES 0753 : 1993 (1) KLT 0717 #11: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.138 of the Act..C. 142-.Dishonour of cheque -Complaint filed within limitation .482) (Mohammed Rasheed Vs State of Kerala).Judicial First Class Magistrate).No illegality . L.. 1881.e.Cheque . S. 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 605 (ORISSA) : 1993 ISJ (BANKING) 0570 : 1993 (3) RCR (CRL.. 142-. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 256 (KERALA) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0125 : 1994 (2) RCR (CRL. (M/s.P. 138. (D.J. CASES 0045 : 1994 CRL.Delay can be condoned.Firm which issued the cheques not made an accused in the complaint Can be impleaded even after the expiry of the period of one month from the date of cause of action envisaged in S.Court at place `T' has jurisdiction. CASES 0538 : 1996 BJ 0240 : 1995 (4) CRIMES 0457 : 1995 (4) CCR 0119 #17: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 138.Cheque drawn on bank at place `M' and cheque presented for collection at place `M' .Complaint filed-Quashing of-such complaints are cognizable by Courts of competent jurisdiction .Dishonour of cheque .Aildas & Company & Ors. 1994(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 462 (P&H) : 1994 ISJ (BANKING) 0177 : 1994 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (P&H) 0071 : 1995 (1) RCR (CRL. .) 0133 : 1994 (1) BANKING CASES 0113 : 1993 (2) BCLR 0103 : 1993 CRL.Arises only on the expiry of 15 days notice period .Duraisamy). 1993 (SUPPL..J. CASES 0549 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0268 : 1993 (1) SLJ 0509 #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J.Police cannot entertain a complaint under Sections 3 & 5 Cr. 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 91 (MADRAS) : 1996 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0863 : 1996 (1) BANKING CASES 0149 : 1995 (1) BCLR 0654 : 1998 (93) COMP.Neither Ingredients of the offence spelled out nor disclosed as to how the court at place `M' has jurisdiction .Complaint complying with all the ingredients . 142-. 142-. (Janardhan Mohapatra Vs Saroj Kumar Choudhry). 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 196 (KERALA) #18: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Magistrate of the first class is empowered to impose a fine exceeding Rs.Ramamoorthy Vs K.Cause of action arises at the place where the drawer of the cheque fails to make the payment of money..).. 138. 142-. 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 779 (KARNATAKA) : 1991 ISJ (BANKING) 0237 : 1992 (1) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0237 : 1991 (3) RCR (CRL. 1881. 1866 : ILR 1991 (KAR) 0612 #12: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Syed Rasool & Sons & Ors. 1881.Dishonoured . the place where the bank is located or the place where the cheque was issued or delivered Court within whose jurisdiction any of such place falls has jurisdiction to try the offence. 142-. 142-. 1881. (H. 1881. 1881. 138. 138. ). 1881.J.142 of the Act if other conditions in the sections are satisfied. Section 138. 142. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 808 (BOMBAY) : 2007(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 868 (BOMBAY) #1: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Aithala Vs Ganapathy N..P.Dishonour of cheque . . (Premlata Chaddha Vs Surendra Kumar Soni).Complaint . 138.Embee Textiles Limited & Anr.Notice issued .. 142(b)-.S..Condonation 13 days delay . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 475 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 944 (KAR. 142(b)-.).. & Anr. 142(b)-.) : 2007 CLC 1008 : 2007(2) AIRKARR 211 : 2007(3) AIR BOMR 500 : 2007(54) ALLINDCAS 476 : ILR (KANT) 2007 KAR 765 : 2007(2) KANTLJ 491 #3: PATNA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Company . & Anr.Summoning order set aside .Dishonour of cheque .Issuance of process Provision of S.Delay in filing complaint Cognizance wrongly taken . 1881.J.Legal representative of the payee or holder in due course can file a complaint u/s 138 read with S.Trial Court to summon the payee and thereafter to pass appropriate orders after examining the payee u/s 200 Cr. CASES 0339 : 1991 (3) CRIMES 0832 : 1992 CRL. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 083 (PATNA) #4: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque . 1993 (SUPPL.) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138. 1881. 1881. Section 138. 142-.Limitation .Dishonour of cheques . (Birendra Kumar Singh Vs State of Bihar & Anr. 0597 : 1991 (2) ALT (CRL.Power of attorney holder is not payee or holder in due course . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 70 (M. on such a complaint no process can be issued much less a conviction imposed. 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 130 (KARNATAKA) #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Accused discharged. (Chandra Babu Vs Remani).Held.) 0146 : 1992 (1) BANKING CASES 0120 : 1993 (1) BCLR 0201 : 1993 (76) COMP.Held. Vs Shanthi Group. 53-. Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr.) 0486 : 1998 (4) CIVIL LJ 0104 : 1998 (4) RCR (CRL. 1881. 142(b)-.Delay .138 on second dishonour.No complaint filed Cheque again presented on request of accused . (Ashok Bampto Pagui Vs Agencia Real Canacona Pvt.Filing of complaint after period of limitation . (Maharaja Developers & Anr.J. (Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad & Ors..Complaint .Cheque dishonoured .Complaint filed by Director without authorisation from Board of Directors . 145-.P.Complaint .) ISJ (BANKING) 0727 : 1993 (1) RCR (CRL. Section 138. 142.Delay can be condoned in the interest of justice having regard to the nature of transaction and the amount involved and also having regard to the difficulties expressed .) ISJ (BANKING) 0218 : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (M.Hegde).It is open to Court to take cognizance of complaint made after prescribed period. Section 138.).Supported by an affidavit . 1881.P. (Amit Yadav Vs State of U..Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .).) : 1992 ISJ (BANKING) 0466 : 1992 (3) RCR (CRL. Vs Sadhu Ram & Co. 142(b)-.L.P.C.P.) : 1999 2001 (SUPP. Section 138.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM.of Ss.).No offence is made out .J.L.Drawee competent to prosecute under S.Complaint remitted back .`Payment stopped by drawer' . Section 138. there is absolutely no justification for the High Court to exercise powers under Section 482 Cr. if complainant satisfies Court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within prescribed period..1996 (SUPP. Bangalore & Ors.Magistrate is obliged and duty bound to examine upon oath the complainant and his witnesses before issuance of process though there is a solemn affirmation at the foot of the complaint by the complainant..Complaint by one of its Directors . 142. (P.) 0457 #19: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Maharaja Developers & Anr.) 0725 : 1998 CRL.Court can take cognizance only when cheque is dishonoured either due to inadequacy of funds or due to the amount exceeding the limit. 1881. L. 2003(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 641 (KERALA) : 2003(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 12 (KERALA) . 142(a)-. 1991 CIVIL COURT CASES 680 (A. Section 138.2207 : AIR 2007 NOC 1372 (BOM. 2008(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 902 (ALLAHABAD) : 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 163 (ALLAHABAD) #5: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Vs State of Andhra Pradesh).) : 2007 CLC 873 : 2007(3) AIRBOMR 181 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 1339 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 145-. 138 & 142 .200 Cr.Dishonour of cheque .). Section 138. (Ranjitha Balasubramanian & Anr. (M/S. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI. 3657 : 1998 (2) MPLJ 0054 #2: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 1881.Complaint signed by power of attorney holder .Dishonour of cheque .) 0349 : 1993 (1) BANKING CASES 0068 : 1993 (1) CRIMES 0394 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Ltd.).Court should take a reasonable view in condoning the delay . 1881..Cheque again dishonoured .C. L.C.P.Delay condoned.Complaint .Since the complaint was filed by power of attorney under improper legal advice as such Magistrate to consider this aspect for extending the time for filing the complaint.) CIVIL COURT CASES 106 (P&H) : 1990 . Vs Udaysingh Pratapsinghrao Bhonsle & Anr. 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 465 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 212 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007 CRI.P. applies. 1881. #1: MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P. Section 138.4 & 5 of Cr. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 117 (M.(As amended) . (Vasudevan Vs State of Kerala).Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. Section 138.Dishonour of cheque .Complaint . (Rajendra B. (Panda Leasing & Properties Ltd. Shirdi Sai Finance Corporation.) : 2007 CRILJ 844 : 2007(1) AIRBOMR 209 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 710 : 2007(1) ALLMR 893 : 2007 ALLMR(CRI) 184 : 2007(1) MAHLJ 370 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque .145 of the Act permits filing of affidavit.P. 145-.Dishonour of cheque .) : 2006(2) DCR 701 : 2006(6) ALJ 700 #3: ORISSA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.143 of the Act.Permissible by way of affidavit .) : 2006 CRI LJ 1988 : 2006(4) ALJ 679 (NOC) : 2006(4) AIR BOM HCR 602 (NOC) : 2006(3) ALL CRI LR 573 : 2006 ALL MR(CRI. 1881. (Steel Tubes of India Vs Steel Authority of India).P. Act. Section 138.Cognizance can be taken relying on affidavit as provision of S.) 219 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 229 : 2006(4) ICC 305 : 2006(1) JAB LJ 440 : 2006(1) MPLJ 194 #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Preliminary evidence . Court must receive affidavits as evidence at the stage of S.. 1881. Vs Hemant Kumar Moharana).Unless the case falls within `just exception' contemplated u/s 145 of N.200 Cr.C.5. will be applicable for summary trial which cannot be converted in warrant trial in view of Ss. can be given on affidavit. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 523 (BOMBAY) (DB) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 748 (BOMBAY) (DB) : AIR 2007 NOC 418 (BOM.Affidavit in support thereof . 145-.Fine exceeding Rs.Initial statement u/s 200 Cr.Dishonour of cheque .. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 440 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 895 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 220 #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 903 (A. 1881.P.P..I. 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 691 (ORISSA) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 597 (ORISSA) : 2006(2) CRIMES 220 (ORISSA) #4: KERALA HIGH COURT . 1881. 145-. S. 000/.C. Section 138.Ss.). and should not insist on personal appearance and examination of the complainant to give sworn statement.C.Dishonour of cheque .P.) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (M.P. (Gulam Haidar Ali Khan Vs Managing Partner.. 143-. 1881. 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 717 (A.C.262 to 265 Cr.can be imposed in view of amended provision of S. 143-.Kota). Section 138.Summary procedure of trial is to be followed . 147-. 145-.Rajeshwari Vs H.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S. 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S.C.Revision against Compounding of offence . Section 138.In such a case High Court can exercise its power u/s 482 Cr. every offence punishable under the Act is compoundable. any settlement arrived at.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL. (Subramanian Vs Krishnakumar).P.C.With the amendment introduced in S. 1881.C.Compounding of offence .) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL. Section 138.147 of the Act.It shall be taken that parties have compounded the offence .C. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.Compounding of offence . 1881.Dishonour of cheque .Rajeshwari Vs H...).Appellate Court maintained conviction but amount of compensation reduced During pendency of revision in High Court parties compromised and payment made towards full and final settlement of dues .Cheque amount paid and complainant received the same . Section 138. Court itself recording settlement and acquitted the accused.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 233 (S.)..).Compounding of offence .) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #6: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 188 (A.Conviction . 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S. Section 138.Jagadish). (Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs M/s A. 147-.Accused can be acquitted if parties arrive at settlement . offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable and there is no reason to refuse compromise between parties Order of conviction and sentence set aside and accused acquitted of the charge against him.. 147-.C.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S. 147-.Heavy Machinery & Engg. (Gurmeet Singh Vs Raj Kumar & Anr.Table appended to S.) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.).P.C.A.N. 147-.P. 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Offence u/s 138 of the Act is compoundable..Dishonour of cheque .C.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .) : 2008(1) RCR(CRL.Compromise during pendency of appeal . is not attracted as provisions mentioned therein refer only to provisions of IPC and none other. 1881. 147-.Criminal Court cannot compel complainant to file proof affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 168 (S.C.). 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 439 (P&H) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 351 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 214 (P&H) : 2007(1) RECCIVR 217 #4: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Jagadish).Accused making payment of cheque .Dishonour of cheque . as also under Article 226 and .) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S..) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 229 (S.Conviction .) #3: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138.Conviction .Kiran Bala & Anr.C.320 Cr. 1881.. 2008(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 052 (S. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #2: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (R.C.Direction to pay double the amount of cheque as compensation . 1881. Section 138.P. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 602 (RAJASTHAN) #5: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2006(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 25 (A.Jabbar & Anr.. 1881.A.Accused acquitted.) 249 : 2008(1) RCR(C) 249 : 2007(6) RAJ 558 : 2007(5) LAW HERALD 3843 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 716 : 2008 CRILJ 805 : 2007 AIRSCW 7844 : 2008(1) AIRKARR 478 : 2008(2) SCC 305 : 2007(13) SCALE 705 : 2008(1) SCC(CRI) 351 : 2007(8) SUPREME 245 #7: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Allowed . Section 138.C.).Amount of cheque and damages paid . (Shareef Mohammad Vs The State of Rajasthan & Anr.) : 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 268 (S.Mohana Pai Vs V..Parties compounding offence during revision . (M.. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 029 (S.Compounding of offence under Section 138 NI Act can be done during trial of case as well as by the High Court or Court or Session while acting in exercise of its power of revision under Section 401 Cr.Written compromise also filed .N. 1881. 1881. 147-..Accused convicted . 1881.C. 1881.Parties compromised during pendency of revision . (Ramesh Chander Vs State of Haryana & Anr. 147-.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #9: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).).Dishonour of cheque .Conviction and sentence set aside. Section 138.Dishonour of cheque ..C. Section 138. on behalf of a party to a lis is binding on the parties. 1881. Section 138.Complaint .P.C. 1881.Negotiable Instruments Act. (Surindera Rani Vs Smt.Conviction set aside.P.Dishonour of cheque .Conviction set aside . 147-.In the instant case in view of peculiar facts of the case.) 171 : 2008(2) RAJ 258 #8: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.C. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 208 (P&H) #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 147-.Held. (Vinay Devanna Nayak Vs Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd.Acquittal cannot be recoded on this ground . 147-. Section 138. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 144 (P&H) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 075 (P&H) #10: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (R. Section 138.) : 2008(2) RCR(CRL.Compounding of offence by Advocate When authority is granted by a litigant in favour of Advocate which empowers the latter to enter into a settlement.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Ltd.Compounding of offence after verdict of conviction and sentence becomes final . 27-.When a drawer deliver a signed cheque.Accused acquitted.. (Sathyan Ayyappa Sathyan Vs Yousu & Anr. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 499 (MADRAS) : 1998 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0736 : 1999 (1) RCR (CRL. Section 138. (Harjeet Singh & Anr. Vs Amarjit Singh). 1881. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL.C. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #12: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).Compensation . Section 138. 30-. Section 138.When dishonour of cheque takes place. 1881.Every person who at the time when the offence was committed.). certainly the holder is entitled to be compensated.Conviction and sentence set aside. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 639 (KERALA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 889 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2020 (KER. Section 138. (Sabu George & etc. 1881. 1881.) : 2008(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 801 (S.) : 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 569 (S. Vs Amarjit Singh). Section 138. Section 138. (Santosh Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan & Anr. 20-. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #2: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.). is not attracted to offences under Negotiable Instruments Act . Section 138. 1881.Held. (T. 1881.Alexander & Anr. (K. 147-.Compromise in revision .. 1881. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 724 (KERALA) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 979 (KERALA) : 2006(2) KLT 289 #1: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138.C.C.). (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 423 (BOMBAY) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 682 (BOMBAY) #3: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Registered society .Compromise after conviction . it is open to drawee to present dishonoured cheque again and again to bank during validity period of cheque..Offence u/s 138 is compoundable without permission of Court..Not illegal. 27-.Cheque period expiring on a public holiday . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Offence under Act is compoundable .R. 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 542 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0661 : 2000 (2) RCR (CRL. Vs Home Secretary. 147-.)...Table appended to S.P.Nagappa Vs Y. Vs Home Secretary.Can file a complaint.) : AIR 2008 SC 2010 #1: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. was in charge of.C. (Purushottam Vs Manohar K.) 0594 : 1998 (2) BANKING CASES 0589 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Compromise after conviction .Held.Dishonour of cheque .227 of Constitution . (Harjeet Singh & Anr.Undated cheque . 147-. Section 138. Section 138.Deshmukh & Anr.Notice issued and complaint filed by Advocate on instructions given by Power of attorney holder of payee and not by payee himself . (Pandalai Vs Jacob C.Adducing evidence in support of defence is a valuable right Allowed.Dishonour of cheque . 2008(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 814 (RAJASTHAN) #14: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act..) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138.Subbaraman Vs Iyyammal).. 1881.Dishonour of cheque . he gives an authority to the holder to put a date of his choice. 2008(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 040 (KERALA) #13: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. New Delhi & Anr.C. Department of Home Affairs.Complainant permitted to compound offence .In such a case power u/s 482 Cr.Muralidhar).Dishonour of cheque . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 207 (P&H) #15: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.. 20-. 147-. 2008(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 229 (S.20 of the Act confers only a prima facie right. even after . (Shaji Vs Kerala State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. that too conditional upon the holder of a negotiable instrument .Accused moved an application for sending the cheque to handwriting expert .Alexander & Anr. 1881.P. 1881. that S. 20-. Section 138.Order of conviction and sentence set aside. Section 138. 151-.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. can be invoked after disposal of revision notwithstanding the bar u/s 362 Cr..It is open to a person to sign and deliver a blank or incomplete cheque and is equally open for the holder of cheque to fill up blanks and specify the amount therein.Deshmukh & Anr.Dishonour of cheque .Cheque shall be deemed to be due on the next preceding business day. (Sabu George & etc.) : 2007 CRILJ 2590 : 2007(5) AKAR 802 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 857 : 2006(4) KERLT 923 #1: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Dishonour of cheque ..Blank cheque .).Offence committed by a registered society . New Delhi & Anr. 25-. (Pandalai Vs Jacob C. Department of Home Affairs.).). 42-.Power of attorney holder . and was responsible to the society for the conduct of the business of the society as well as the society shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished.Re-presentation of cheque after lodging complaint .. 1881.).320 Cr.S.P.) 0480 : 2000(2) KLT 0059 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 300 (P&H) #3: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Criminal Procedure Code.37. (Capital Syndicate Vs Jameela).Leave to defend .Presentation of the cash cheque not by the complainant but by another person .However.Means a person who for consideration became the possessor of a cheque if payable to bearer before the amount became payable .Lending of money . & Anr.Quashing of complaint .Dishonour of cheque . (George Vs Kamarudeen).).Unless contrary is proved the holder of a negotiable instrument shall be presumed to be a holder in due course. 1881. 9-..Kondody).5 lacs .) CIVIL COURT CASES 715 (KARNATAKA) : 1997 (4) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0299 : 1998 (94) COMP.Dishonour of cheque .17 --. ON DISHONOUR OF CHEQUES 70 ALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 72-.) 0753 : 1998 (94) COMP. Section 138 --.P. Jhalawar & Anr. 1973.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S.Amendment in written statement sought that cheque was issued as security for loan taken by vendee from vendor . CASES 0163 : 1997 (4) CRIMES 0135 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C. Section 138. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 421 (RAJASTHAN) (DB) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Civil Procedure Code.6.It is not a ground for quashing complaint .Petitioner to furnish security instead of bank guarantee.Amendment .Amendment does not change nature of suit . (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr.It is of no consequence. 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 362 (S. (Avtar Singh Vs Singh Finance).C. 1908. 1881. Vs State of U.) 0319 : 1998 (1) KLT 0038 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.'A holder in due course' . O.Conviction set aside.) 177 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 289 : 2005 BANK J 571 : 2005(4) CIV LJ 371 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 457 : 2005(2) ICC 441 : ILR(KER.Cheque alleged to be towards outstanding dues . 9-..Account books not produced by complainant . (Chandra Prakash Vs The Additional District Judge (Fast Track). 2006(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (P&H) : 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 021 (P&H) : AIR 2007 NOC 57 (P&H) : 2006(6) ALJ(EE) 753 : 2006(45) ALLINDCAS 748 .43 of the Act comes into play. offence u/s 138 is made out. 1881. (Michael Kuruvilla Vs Joseph J. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 437 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 197 (KERALA) : 2005(1) KLT 353 : 2005 CRI LJ 1237 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 666 : 2005(27) ALL IND CAS 667 : 2005 ALL MR(CRI. 1997 (SUPPL. in case cheque is issued in anticipation of lending money but money is not given to the borrower then consideration fails and S.Correction in amount of cheque without consent of maker of cheque .C.Cheque is one issued in discharge of the debt or liability coming u/s 138 of the Act . (M.Loan amount given by way of cheque . 50-. 1881. O.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 : . (Punjab & Sindh Bank Vs Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd.It is material alteration which amounts to cancellation of the instrument . (Jogy David Vs Babu)..Dishonour of cheque . Section 138.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 241 (S.. 1881.At appellate stage .Purchaser of cheque is holder in due course if there is an endorsement in favour of the purchaser.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr. Section 138. 1881.Amendment allowed.Cheque dishonoured on account of insufficient funds .Cheque issued before amount given by complainant . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #4: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Business dealing . subsequent putting of date in an undated cheque would not always amount to material alteration. (Ramachandran Vs Dinesan).Criminal prosecution cannot be launched on it. 87-.).Accused took plea that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security .Loan given through a loan agreement and a promissory note . 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 411 (S. Section 138.Subsequent insertion of amount and name of payee without consent of drawer amounts to material alteration rendering the instrument void as in the absence of certainty regarding the amount and the payee at the time of issue of cheque the cheque cannot be said to be a valid one .Cheque . 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 112 (KERALA) #1: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. 1998(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 688 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0178 : 1998 (1) RCR (CRL.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S. R. (Bhartiya Khand & Gur Udyogshala Vs Punjab National Bank).A bearer cheque can be presented for encashment without any endorsement by the party .. 43-. 1881. 1881. 2006(65) ALLLR 16 SOC #1: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Civil Procedure Code.Such matter has to be looked into at stage of trial. 1908.).Cheque presented within six months but reached Drawee's bank after six months . CASES 0711 : 1998 (2) CRIMES 0375 : 1998 (1) ALT (CRL.Cheque issued by vendee for Rs.Written statement . 2003(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 579 (KERALA) : 2003(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 675 (KERALA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) : 2001(4) MAH LJ 895 : AIR 2001 SC 3641 : 2001(4) REC CRI R 245 : S. R.3 --. Section 138..) 2005(1) KER.Held.S. Section 138. & Ors.Holder in due course . Section 482 --.Suit for specific performance on basis of oral agreement .. (M/s Savitha Enterprises Vs K. 87-. 390 : 2005(1) KLJ 296 #1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1998(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 627 (KERALA) #2: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.C.Ravindranath Shetty).C.lodging complaint.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.).C.However.Dishonour of cheque . Section 138.Contention of accused that cheque was issued as security believed . N. (Moideen Vs Johny). 1881.Senguttuvan Vs Mahadevaswamy).Dishonour of cheque . 1881.) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 : 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI.Defence version is probabilised that cheque was issued by way of security for loan given by complainant to his brother and his brother is already convicted and present proceedings instituted by him to realise amount once again from surety is not maintainable . it is negotiable instrument and encashable security at the hands of payee .Santhamma & Anr.P. Section 138 --.When blank cheque is issued by one to another.Quashing of complaint .Drawer of cheque incurs liability of prosecution under Section 138 of the Act.Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan .Ledger extract or any letter sanctioning loan amount or pronote to show sanction of loan not produced Presumption u/s 139 is not available .) #13: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (S. & Anr.Issued as security .Accused admitted in his cross examination that cheque was given to repay the debt .15 lacs to accused . (Umaswamy Vs K.Accused acquitted.I. Section 138 --. Bangalore Vs Usha Paints & Decorators. Limited.Cheque will continue to be one issued for discharge of liability as contemplated under Section 138 of the Act. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 024 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 210 (KER.Set aside .K. Act. 2007(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 687 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 337 (KARNATAKA) : AIR 2007 NOC 2291 (KAR. Section 138 --.) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD LW (CRI. (Sharad Kumar Tiwari Vs Smt.Dishonour of cheque . Vs State of U.Conviction without considering legal plea and without giving satisfactory reasons for disbelieving fact of interpolation .) : 2007 CRILJ 2643 : 2007(3) AKAR 423 : 2007(5) AIRBOMR 865 : 2006(4) KERLT 308 #11: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. Section 138 --.Fact of interpolation corroborated by expert evidence .P. 1881.Cheque issued by way of security . 1881. (M/s Jai Durga Enterprises & Anr.Cheques were issued as collateral security by accused and not to discharge any existing debt . 1881. (Rathikumar Vs Santhamma).T.Cheque issued as security for repayment of loan .Rathikumar Vs N. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #7: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.P.Cheque issued as security for transaction between the parties .Ramanath). it gives an authority to the person.Case is of civil nature.No merit in contention that blank cheque was given .Not a ground to exonerate the penal liability u/s 138 of N.It is not a ground for quashing complaint .). Bangalore & Anr. (K. Section 138 --. Section 138 --.There was interpolation in amount written in numbers .).Date of lending money not mentioned in complaint and notice .). & Ors.Dishonour of cheque . 1881.`Any debt or other liability' .No criminal offence under S. (M. Section 138 --.Complainant giving a debt of Rs.Cheque issued towards repayment of loan Money lender .Even if cheque is issued as a security for payment.Dishonour of cheque . 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 335 (KARNATAKA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 614 (KARNATAKA) #14: GUJARAT HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Plea that dishonour of such cheque does not attract criminal liability .Plea of accused that blank cheque as security was given and even after repayment of loan cheque was misused . 2008(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 496 (S. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 510 (RAJASTHAN) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Such matter has to be looked into at stage of trial. 1881.Blank cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Ltd.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 096 (KARNATAKA) #9: ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. to fill it up at the appropriate stage with the necessary entries regarding the liability and to present it to Bank . Section 138 --.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39 #5: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Not possible to lend money without any document .) : 2007(5) AIRKARR 346 : ILR(KANT) 2007 KAR 2709 : 2007(4) KANTLJ 334 : 2007(4) RECCIVR 286 #8: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.).138 is made out .Laxmi Tiwari).Dishonour of cheque . etc.Accused took plea that cheque was in possession of complainant for collateral security . 1881. Vs State of Gujarat & Anr. (Shanku Concretes Pvt. Section 138 --. 1881.Cheque continues to be one issued for the discharge of liability as contemplated u/s 138 of the Act.).Accused issued seven post dated cheques in discharge of debt .It is a negotiable instrument . to whom it is issued. Section 138 --. 2000(3) CIVIL .Dishonour of cheques .Cheque issued as security for repayment of debt .Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .Matter remanded for decision afresh.Dishonour of cheque .Dishonour of cheque .No ground to interference in concurrent finding of conviction. 2006(4) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1031 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 220 (KERALA) : 2006 CRI LJ 542 (NOC) #12: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act. (Sudhir Kumar Bhalla Vs Jagdish Chand & etc.2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.C.On dishonour of cheque accused is not absolved of the liability. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 098 (ALLAHABAD) #10: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Second contract entered into between the parties . 1881. 1881.Blank cheque .Loan not paid . 1881. Section 138 --.C. (M. Bangalore Vs M/s.Loan taken . 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 386 (KERALA) : 2005(3) ALLMR 6 : 2005 CRI LJ 1454 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 455 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 597 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 234 : 2005(2) ICC 666 : ILR(KER.Hardly any gap between the two contracts .Dishonour of cheque .Cheque issued as a collateral security .Discharging of liability .Post dated cheque . Act. 1881. Section 138 --.Dishonour of cheque .The very issuance of cheque presumes that it was issued for discharge of liability.Whether cheque was issued as security or discharge of liability is a question of fact to be decided by trial Court. Vs P.Complaint cannot be quashed at the threshold. 1881. 1881.COURT CASES 126 (GUJARAT) #15: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Negotiable Instruments Act.Even collateral security becomes a debt or liability on the part of accused to perform his contract .If such a cheque is deposited and dishonoured then it will not entail the penal liability.) : 2006 CRI LJ 4607 : AIR 2006 SC 3366 : 2006 AIR SCW 4652 : 2006 CLC 1533 : 2006(6) AIR KANT HCR 84 : 2006(2) ALD (CRI.Payment not made as promised . when the liability is assessed and quantified. Ltd.I. Limited).Cheque dishonoured .First contract successfully completed . (Constellation Enterprises Pvt.Accused liable to prosecution. 2006(2) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 411 (S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs State of Kerala & Anr.E. 139 --. Vs M/s.A.).).Security .Given as security .Menon Ventures.C.Held.). 1881. it is plausible and believable on the face of it that the accused could tell the complainant to treat the earlier unused cheque as security for the second contract .No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged .Cheque given as collateral security Cheque was never meant to be deposited . . (Constellation Enterprises Pvt. (M.Cheque which had been issued as security transforms itself into a cheque representing liability in terms of agreement . Limited). 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (DELHI) #18: KARNATAKA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 616 (KARNATAKA) #19: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.A.) 1266 : 2006(2) MAD LW (CRI.C.Cheque bounced .Birla 3M Ltd.Samudra Ropes Pvt.Dishonour of cheque .C.) 918 : 2006(5) MAH LJ 676 : 2006(35) OCR 43 : 2006(3) RAJ CRI C 676 : 2006(4) RAJ LW 2945 : 2006(3) RCR(CRI. Section 138 --.E.When given towards liability or even as security.) 317 : 2006(55) ALL CRI C 994 : 2006(4) ALL CRI LR 356 : 2006(2) ALL CRI R 2170 : 2006(44) ALL IND CAS 700 : 2006(5) ALL MR 33 : 2006(3) BANK CLR 22 : 2006(3) BANK CAS 433 : 2006(3) CRC 730 : 2006(132) COM CAS 450 : 2006(6) COM LJ 39 : 2006(73) COR LA 177 : 2006(3) CRIMES 177 : 2006(3) CUR CIV C 129 : 2006(3) CUR CRI R 76 : 2006(4) EAST CRI C 70 : 2006(3) KLT 404 : 2006(4) MPLJ 97 : 2006 MAD LJ (CRI.Accused is guilty of offence u/s 138 of the Act.S.Post dated cheque . Section 138 --. Rural & Small Scale Industries Development Corporation Ltd.) : 2006(3) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 665 (S. Section 138. Section 138 --.138 of N.Dishonour of cheque . Ltd.`Debt or liability' .C.Used for second contract whereas given for first contract . 139 --. Section 138 --. 1881.Parties having good relations . (Goa Handicrafts.Post dated cheque itself becomes payable . Section 138.) 2005(1) KER 395 : 2005(1) KLJ 301 : 2005(1) KLT 478 #21: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. & Anr.Mohana Pai Vs V.I. Section 138 --. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 304 (DELHI) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 643 (DELHI) #17: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Kumar Rubber Industries Vs Sohan Lal). Ltd.) : 2006(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (S. Section 138 --. (General Auto Sales Vs Vijayalakshmi).Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back .) 504 : 2006(6) SCC 39 : 2006(71) SEBI&CL 89 : 2006(8) SRJ 275 : 2006(6) SCALE 393 : 2006 SCC(CRI. (M/s. 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 78 (P&H) : 2002(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 83 (P&H) #23: BOMBAY HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.) 30 : 2006(5) SUPREME 547 : 2006(2) UJ 1289 : 2006(6) SCC 39 #16: DELHI HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. if cheque is filled up and presented to bank.Agreement executed to repay loan within six months and cheque issued as security to be encashed in case of failure to pay loan amount .Jabbar & Anr. 1881. person who had drawn the cheque cannot avoid liability under section 138 of N.).Comes within fold of S.Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable. (General Auto Sales Vs Vijayalakshmi). & Anr.Cheque if issued for security or for any other purpose the same does not come within the purview of S.138 of the Act. Act.) 2005(1) KER 395 : 2005(1) KLJ 301 : 2005(1) KLT 478 #20: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 797 (KERALA) : 2005(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 743 (KERALA) #22: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2006(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 726 (BOMBAY) : 2006(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 1009 (BOMBAY) #24: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2005(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 654 (KERALA) : 2005(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 386 (KERALA) : 2005(3) ALLMR 6 : 2005 CRI LJ 1454 : 2005(2) ALL CRI LR 455 : 2005(2) BANK CAS 597 : 2005(2) CUR CRI R 234 : 2005(2) ICC 666 : ILR(KER. Vs P.Cheque given as security . 1881. 30 lakhs and promissory note executed Amount not paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding .On repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards discharge of loan amount .) 0112 #4: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Undated cheque issued as security . Section 138 --. 1881.).P. Section 138.Dishonour of cheque . 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 109 (MADRAS) : 1999(1) REC CRI R 683 : 1999(1) BANKING CASES 0298 : 2000(1) BOM CLR 564 : 1999(2) CCR 0424 : 1999 (1) CTC 0006 #5: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Default in payment of instalments .Even if defence is illusory.Subsequently there was hire purchase agreement between accused and complainant . (M/s Adithya Alkaloids Ltd. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 218 (P&H) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Criminal Procedure Code.) 0112 #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.J.Cheque dishonoured . 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0423 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0181 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL.). 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (MADRAS) . 1881. (V.Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque. 139 --.Loan taken of Rs.Act of complainant amounted to sale of property within meaning of S.(K.Presumption . there was no existing liability .The silence and inaction of accused on receipt of demand notice and his omission to raise the contentions now raised are vital and crucial significance when a court tries to evaluate the acceptability of the contention adopting the yardstick of a prudent man. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Limited Vs M.) : 1999 .K.The question as to whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or legally enforceable liability or only as a collateral security is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate at the stage of evidence .P.Accused issued 36 fresh cheques .138 . 1881.Sale transaction not completed .).) 0323 #7: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Accused put in possession of land and given Power of Attorney to do all acts and deeds in respect of land . cheque worked out when fresh cheques were issued and that cheque cannot be made use of for enforcement of subsequent hire purchase agreement. Vs M/s NCC Finance Limited).) 0557 #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Triton Marinex Vs State of Kerala).There was no debt or liability when cheque was handed over to the drawee.Santhamma & Anr. it amounts to a liability which has been undertaken by the drawer of the cheque.Dishonour of cheque . (M/s I.138 does not apply .138 of the Act.) CIVIL COURT CASES 468 (MADRAS) #9: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Shah). no complaint lies under S. 139 --. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 262 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (KERALA) #1: PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT Civil Procedure Code.An undated cheque handed over as security for the purpose of the contract .Transport Company Vs M/s Ganga Auto Agency).) ISJ (BANKING) 0655 : 2001 CRI LJ 1585 #8: MADRAS HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. (Triton Marinex Vs State of Kerala). Section 138 --. Vs M/s Bushan Steels and Strips Ltd.Defence that the amount was not actually due as claimed and could have been settled by settling the accounts and that the cheque was forged by the plaintiff for which defendant has lodged an FIR . Vs Mac Industries Ltd. (Aniyan Thomas Chacko Vs The Varvelil Bankers & Anr.Rebuttal .Cheque issued as a security to make payment of the liability of another company . Section 138 --. Section 138 --. 1999(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 525 (KERALA) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0423 : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0181 : 1999 (2) RCR (CRL. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 580 (P&H) : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL.Leave to defend .139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881. yet the leave to defend can be granted on such conditions so as to protect the interest of the plaintiff .When the allegations made in the complaint make out a prima facie case.Leave granted subject to deposit of 50% of the amount in the Court and furnishing security for the remaining amount to the satisfaction of the Court. Section 482 --. 1881. 1881. 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 114 (KERALA) : 2000 ISJ (BANKING) 0229 : 2000 (1) RCR (CRL. Section 138.Accused making part payment and issuing cheques of balance consideration .Rathikumar Vs N.Burden rests squarely and heavily on the indictee who wants to attribute to himself such an improbable and artificial conduct to claim exculpation from lability .Agreement to sell .Held. 1999 (SUPPL.Provisions of S.When the allegations made in the complaint make out a prima facie case.Even if the cheque is issued as security or in discharge of liability of any other person. 1881.Legal debt and liability .2001 (SUPP. 2000(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 694 (A.When a cheque is issued as a security.Complainant entered the date on the undated cheque given to him earlier and presented the same to claim the amount .The question as to whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or legally enforceable liability or only as a collateral security is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate at the stage of evidence . Section 139 --. the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed.It is for accused to rebut presumption contained in S.37 --.Mal Reddy).Suit for recovery on the basis of cheque .Security . (M/s Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. 1973.It would be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of liability and not as security. O.Accused guilty of offence under S.).Dishonour of cheque for want of sufficient funds . (Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala).Theory of handing over a blank signed cheque as security .Sampath Vs Praveen Chandra V. 1908.54 of Transfer of Property act . 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #25: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138 --. the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed. (M/s Mahaplasto Ltd. 1881. Cheque signed by drawer .Dishonour of cheque .) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #5: ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195 (KER. 139 --. (Chinthala Cheruvu & Anr.P.Burden rests squarely and heavily on the indictee who wants to attribute to himself such an improbable and artificial conduct to claim exculpation from lability .) #6: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 1881.#1: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Rathikumar Vs N. 1881.).Blank signed cheque given as security not taken back . Vs State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (T.P.Santhamma & Anr. (Aniyan Thomas Chacko Vs The Varvelil Bankers & Anr. Section 138 --. Section 139 --. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 104 (KERALA) #2: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act. 2007(4) CIVIL COURT CASES 546 (KERALA) #7: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Presumption .Dishonour of cheque .Theory of handing over a blank signed cheque as security . 1881.P.It is not a case of forgery an fabrication.Dishonour of cheque .). Section 138 --. 2007(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 262 (KERALA) : 2007(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 236 (KERALA) .N.Defence that a signed blank cheque was handed over by an account holder is inherently suspicious .Misutilisation of blank signed cheque Sending cheque to handwriting expert .Dishonour of cheque .Ramankutty & Anr.An implied authority is given to the holder of cheque to fill up the columns therein when a blank cheque duly signed is given .Signed blank cheque . Section 138 --.Discharging of liability .Signature in cheque . 1881.No explanation as to why acknowledgment/voucher not taken when liability was discharged .Dishonour of cheque .K.K.Dishonour of cheque .By mere admission of signature right of accused to contend that a blank signed cheque was misutilised by the payee is not taken away.).Blank cheque .If holder of cheque fills up date and amount by words and figures then it does not amount to any offence . (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair). 1881. 2008(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 401 (A.Rebuttal .).Plea of discharge is so fragile and brittle that it must fall to the ground as improbable and unacceptable.Unnikrishnan Vs T. 1881. (Bhaskaran Nair Vs Abdul Kareem).The silence and inaction of accused on receipt of demand notice and his omission to raise the contentions now raised are vital and crucial significance when a court tries to evaluate the acceptability of the contention adopting the yardstick of a prudent man.Drawer cannot get absolved of the liability u/s 138 of the Act.Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution .) : 2008(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 391 (A. Section 138.Dishonour of cheque . 1881. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 517 (KERALA) : 2007(2) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 626 (KERALA) : AIR 2007 NOC 195 (KER. Section 138 --.) : 2007 CRILJ 233 : 2007(3) AKAR 408 : 2007(52) ALLINDCAS 623 : 2007(1) KERLJ 245 : 2007(1) KERLT 525 : 2007(3) RECCIVR 114 #4: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Cheque filled up by some other person putting the date and amount . Section 138 --. 2007(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 655 (KERALA) #3: KERALA HIGH COURT Negotiable Instruments Act.Magistrate directed to forward the cheque to expert for comparison if accused wants the admitted handwritings/specimen writings to be compared with the disputed writings in the cheque.Burden rests heavily on shoulders of account holder to claim absolution from culpable liability. (K.Admission of signature in cheque is not equivalent or synonymous with admission of execution .Blank cheque theory . (Bindu Vs Sreekantan Nair).