Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

30 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

RAKESH BHANOTversusM/S. GURDAS AGRO PVT. LTD

2025 INSC 44531 March 2025Dismissed

The appellants, who were directors and guarantors of a company, were charged under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing cheques that bounced due to insufficient funds. While the criminal proceedings were pending, they filed personal insolvency applications under section 94 of the Insolvenc

ANIL KHANDELWAL ETC.versusPHOENIX INDIA AND ANR.

2025 INSC 106928 August 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The Bank of Baroda issued a possession notice under the SARFAESI Act to recover defaulted loans, but a clerical error inflated the outstanding amount, leading the borrower Phoenix India to allege defamation and file a criminal complaint under Sections 499, 500 and 501 IPC against the Bank's senior officers. The magistr

THE STATE OF KARNATAKAversusCHANDRASHA

2024 INSC 92826 November 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The State of Karnataka appealed against the Karnataka High Court’s order acquitting a government servant, Chandrasha, who was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 2,000 to facilitate the encashment of surrender‑leave

REKHA SHARAD USHIRversusSAPTASHRUNGI MAHILA NAGARI SAHKARI PATSANSTA LTD.

2025 INSC 39926 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rekha Sharad Ushir, was accused of dishonouring a cheque issued to Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., a credit co‑operative society, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The society filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate, alleging default on a loan and the non‑pa

SANJABIJ TARIversusKISHORE S. BORCAR & ANR.

2025 INSC 115825 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Sanjabij Tari, appealed against the High Court’s ex‑parte order acquitting Kishore S. Borcar (respondent No.1) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a bounced cheque of Rs.7.5 lakh. The central issue was whether the High Court could overturn the concurrent findings of the trial and sess

BANSAL MILK CHILLING CENTREversusRANA MILK FOOD PRIVATE LTD. & ANR.

2025 INSC 89925 July 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the respondents had purchased Desi Ghee and that three cheques totalling Rs. 14 lakh were dishonoured. After summons were issued and before the complainant's cross‑examination, the appellant sought to amend the complaint t

ANUKUL SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

2025 INSC 115324 September 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Anukul Singh, challenged a FIR and charge sheet filed under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC alleging cheating and forgery arising from a dispute over a loan and property ownership. He contended that the FIR was a retaliatory measure linked to a civil dispute over land possession and that the complainant ha

SHRI GURUDATTA SUGARS MARKETING PVT. LTD.versusPRITHVIRAJ SAYAJIRAO DESHMUKH & ORS.

2024 INSC 55124 July 2024Dismissed

Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing Pvt. Ltd. entered into agreements with Cane Agro Energy Ltd., which failed to supply sugar and issued two cheques that were later dishonoured for insufficient funds. The appellant filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act and obtained an order of interim compensation under S

HDFC BANK LIMITEDversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

2025 INSC 75922 May 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, HDFC Bank Ltd., filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a private limited company and its three directors, including Mrs. Ranjana Sharma, for issuing a cheque that was dishonoured. The High Court of Bombay quashed the proceedings against Mrs. Sharma on the g

BIJAY AGARWALversusM/S MEDILINES

2024 INSC 91821 October 2024Appeal(s) allowed

Bijay Agarwal, an authorized signatory and director of M/s Gee Pee Infotech Pvt. Ltd., was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of cheques issued by the company. The trial court imposed a fine and the appellate court suspended the sentence on the condition that Agarwal deposit

KAVERI PLASTICSversusMAHDOOM BAWA BAHRUDEEN NOORUL

2025 INSC 113319 September 2025Dismissed

Kaveri Plastics issued a cheque of Rs 1 crore to the respondent, which was returned unpaid. The plaintiff served two demand notices under Proviso (b) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but each notice demanded Rs 2 crore, double the cheque amount. The Delhi High Court quashed the criminal complaint on th

VISHNOO MITTALversusM/S SHAKTI TRADING COMPANY

2025 INSC 34616 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a former director of a corporate debtor, was served a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques drawn before the commencement of insolvency proceedings. While the insolvency process and a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC were imposed on 25 July 2018, the dem

S.C. GARGversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

2025 INSC 49315 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, S.C. Garg, Managing Director of Ruchira Papers Ltd., was charged under Section 420 IPC for allegedly cheating respondent R.N. Tyagi after the parties had already resolved a dispute over seven dishonoured cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The earlier NI Act case resulted in Tyag

DHANASINGH PRABHUversusCHANDRASEKAR & ANOTHER

2025 INSC 83114 July 2025Case Allowed

The appellant, Dhanasingh Prabhu, advanced a loan of Rs.21 lakh to the respondents who were partners of the partnership firm “Mouriya Coirs”. The respondents issued a cheque in the name of the firm which was dishonoured, prompting the appellant to serve a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments

MANSI BRAR FERNANDESversusSHUBHA SHARMA AND ANR.

2025 INSC 111012 September 2025Disposed off

The Supreme Court examined whether the appellants, who entered into buy‑back memoranda of understanding for residential units, were "speculative investors" and thus barred from filing Section 7 insolvency petitions, and whether the 2019 Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (Amendment) Ordinance and the subsequent 2020 Amendm

KAMALKISHOR SHRIGOPAL TAPARIAversusINDIA ENER-GEN PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.

2025 INSC 22312 February 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an independent non‑executive director of D.S. Kulkarni Developers Ltd., was named in complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of cheques issued by the company. The cheques were not signed by him and he had resigned from the board before the offences occurred. He so

SANKAR PADAM THAPAversusVIJAYKUMAR DINESHCHANDRA AGARWAL

2025 INSC 12109 October 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a liaison for a private university, was issued a cheque of Rs.5 crore by the respondent, who was the Chairman and authorized signatory of Orion Education Trust, but the cheque was dishonoured. The appellant filed a criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and

M/S CELESTIUM FINANCIALversusA. GNANASEKARAN ETC

2025 INSC 8048 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Celestium Financial, a finance partnership, sued three borrowers for dishonouring cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial magistrate acquitted the borrowers, finding the complainant had not proved a legally enforceable debt. The appellant sought special leave to appeal under Section 3

RAJ REDDY KALLEMversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2024 INSC 3478 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing dishonoured cheques and also faced an FIR under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the IPC for allegedly cheating a complainant after taking an advance for a laser cutting machine. Both parties initially agreed to settle the dispute

POONAMversusDULE SINGH & ORS.

2025 INSC 12846 November 2025Dismissed

The petitioner, Poonam, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and failed to disclose this conviction in the affidavit required by Rule 24‑A of the Madhya Pradesh Nagar Palika Nirvachan Niyam, 1994 when filing her nomination for councillor. The trial court declared her election void und

M/S SHRI SENDHUR AGRO & OIL INDUSTRIESversusKOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.

2025 INSC 3286 March 2025Disposed off

Shri Sendhur Agro & Oil Industries, a proprietorship based in Coimbatore, defaulted on an overdraft facility and Kotak Mahindra Bank filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the Judicial Magistrate Court at Chandigarh. The petitioner sought transfer of the criminal case to a court in Tam

RAJENDRA ANANT VARIKversusGOVIND B. PRABHUGAONKAR

2025 INSC 6335 May 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Rajendra Anant Varik, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a dishonoured cheque and was ordered to pay compensation. He appealed, and the First Appellate Court acquitted him, holding that the complainant was an unlicensed money‑lender under the Goa Money‑Lenders Act, whic

SARANGA ANILKUMAR AGGARWALversusBHAVESH DHIRAJLAL SHETH & ORS.

2025 INSC 3143 March 2025Dismissed

The appellant, a real‑estate developer, was penalised by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) with 27 penalties under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act for failing to deliver possession of residential units. While insolvency proceedings were initiated against the appellant under Section 9

K.S. MEHTAversusM/S MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PVT. LTD.

2025 INSC 3153 March 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellants, K.S. Mehta and Basant Kumar Goswami, were non‑executive directors of Blue Coast Hotels & Resorts Ltd. and were implicated in criminal complaints under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonoured cheques issued to repay an inter‑corporate deposit. They neither atte

PREM RAJversusPOONAMMA MENON & ANR.

2024 INSC 2602 April 2024Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant borrowed Rs.2,00,000 from the complainant and issued a cheque which was later dishonoured for insufficient funds. The complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, while the appellant simultaneously filed a civil suit seeking a declaration that the same cheque

NATIONAL HOUSING BANKversusBHERUDAN DUGAR HOUSING FINANCE LTD. & ORS. ETC.

2024 INSC 5661 August 2024Case Partly allowed

The National Housing Bank filed a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging that Bherudan Dugar Housing Finance Ltd., its Managing Director, and five directors violated Section 29A(i) read with Section 50 of the National Housing Bank Act, 1987, an offence punishable under Section 49(2A). The High Court quashed

M/S ARIF AZIM CO. LTD.versusM/S APTECH LTD.

2024 INSC 1551 March 2024Case Allowed

The petitioners, an Afghan franchisee, sought appointment of a sole arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to resolve disputes over royalty payments and renewal of franchise agreements with the respondent. The key issues were whether the Limitation Act, 1963 applied to a Section 11

DALJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

2025 INSC 211 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Daljit Singh, was declared a proclaimed offender under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. for failing to appear after summons in a cheque‑related criminal case filed in 2010. He was later acquitted of the underlying offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and an FIR under Section 174A IPC was filed for his

M/S NARESH POTTERIESversusM/S AARTI INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

2025 INSC 11 January 2025Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Naresh Potteries (appellant) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against M/s Aarti Industries (respondent No.1) for the dishonour of a cheque issued in the appellant's favour. The complaint was filed by the manager, Neeraj Kumar, who held a power of attorney from the sole proprieto

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