Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Negotiable Instruments Act

15 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M/S. ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANISATION ETC.versusDHARWAD DISTT. KHADI GRAMUDYOG SANGH ETC.

2000 INSC 18131 March 2000Dismissed

The petitioner, a common carrier governed by the Carriers Act, 1865, filed a petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission alleging loss due to the carrier's negligence. The issue was whether Section 9 of the Carriers Act, which places the burden on the carrier to prove absence of negligence, appl

"COMMON CAUSE", A REGISTERED SOCIETY THROUGH ITS DIRECTORversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

1996 INSC 140228 November 1996Disposed off

The Supreme Court issued a clarificatory order modifying its earlier judgment (1 May 1996) in Writ Petition (C) No. 1128 of 1986, which had provided for discharge or acquittal of accused whose criminal trials were pending for a prescribed period. The Court held that the relief does not apply where the pendency is cause

ANIL HADAversusINDIAN ACRYLIC LIMITED

1999 INSC 53126 November 1999Dismissed

The appellant, a director of Mis. Rama Fibres Ltd, was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques. The company faced winding‑up proceedings, and the magistrate suspended prosecution against the company but proceeded against the directors. The appellant argued that prosecution of

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER IRRIGATION GALIMALA & ORS.versusABAADUTA JENA

1987 INSC 25922 September 1987Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether an arbitrator, appointed without court intervention, could award interest for the period before the reference and for the pendente lite period of the arbitration. It held that an arbitrator is not a court within the meaning of CPC s.34 and therefore cannot award pendente lite interest

ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANY LTD.versusKESHVANAND

1997 INSC 81916 December 1997Appeal(s) allowed

Associated Cement Company Ltd. filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Kesvanand. The magistrate examined the company’s authorized representative, Puneet Aggarwal, on oath, but on two consecutive dates the representative was absent and the magistrate acquitted the accused under Sec

SAROJ KUMAR PODDARversusSTATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.

2007 INSC 4116 January 2007Appeal(s) allowed

Elkay International supplied chemicals to VHEL Industries Ltd., which issued three cheques that were later dishonoured. A complaint was filed against the company, its managing director, and other directors, including the appellant who had resigned from the board before the cheques were issued. The appellant sought to q

UCO BANK & ORS.versusRAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA

2018 INSC 14515 February 2018Dismissed

The appellant UCO Bank alleged that its former employee Rajendra Shankar Shukla, while in charge of an extension counter, issued a Rs.3 lakh cheque without sufficient funds in 1991, leading to a charge sheet issued only in 1998. Shukla superannuated in January 1999, but disciplinary proceedings continued and he was dis

S.K. ALAGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

2008 INSC 20215 February 2008Case Allowed

The proprietor of Akash Traders filed a criminal complaint against the Managing Director of Britannia Industries Ltd, alleging criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC for demand drafts issued for undelivered goods. The company itself was not impleaded, and the appellant was initially discharged by the magistrate

ALL CARGO MOVERS (I) PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusDHANESH BADARMAL JAIN AND ANR.

2007 INSC 106312 October 2007Appeal(s) allowed

All Cargo Movers (I) Pvt. Ltd. and related companies entered into a contract of carriage to deliver consignments to Kenya. The goods were allegedly delivered without the original Bills of Lading, leading the consignee to claim breach of contract and file a civil suit in the Bombay High Court. More than a year later, th

JOHN K. JOHNversusTOM VARGHESE AND ANR.

2007 INSC 106512 October 2007Dismissed

John K. John filed criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that Tom Vargheese issued two cheques which were dishonoured for insufficient funds. The trial court and the appellate court held that the respondent was guilty, but the Kerala High Court, on revision, acquitted him, fin

SUDHIR SHANTILAL MEHTAversusC.B.I.

2009 INSC 10357 August 2009Disposed off

The case concerned the discounting and rediscounting of two bills of exchange by UCO Bank, allegedly to provide funds to stock‑broker Harshad Mehta for securities transactions. The Supreme Court examined whether the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 had jurisdiction over

DINESH B. PATEL & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

2010 INSC 4856 August 2010Dismissed

A criminal complaint was filed against a medicine‑manufacturing company and its directors alleging that the drug was defective due to fungal growth, constituting a breach of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. The company and its directors sought to quash the complaint under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Guj

M.S. NARAYANAN MENON @ MANIversusSTATE OF KERALA AND ANR.

2006 INSC 3844 July 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a share broker, was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of a cheque issued to a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange. He contended that the cheque was given as security, not in discharge of any debt, and that he had discharged the initial evidential burden under S

RISHIPAL SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2014 INSC 4612 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a bank branch manager, was charged with multiple IPC offences for allegedly conspiring with co‑accused to cheat a complainant after a lost cheque book was reported. The complainant had written to the bank on 17 May 2004 requesting that the lost cheques not be honoured, and the bank indeed refused to clea

KAPIL AGARWAL AND OTHERSversusSANJAY SHARMA AND OTHERS

2021 INSC 1321 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed

The dispute arose from a terminated distributorship agreement between Varun Beverages Ltd. and the complainant, who alleged non‑payment of commissions and issued a cheque that later bounced. The complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and later a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search