JUGESH SEHGALversusSHAMSHER SINGH GOGI
2009 INSC 90010 July 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The complainant, a petroleum trader, alleged that four members of the same family issued a cheque of Rs 24,92,115 drawn on Indian Bank, Sonepat, which was returned unpaid with the remark "Account closed". He filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the four accused. The acc…
EVEREST ADVERTISING PVT. LTD.versusSTATE, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS.
2007 INSC 39710 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed
Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. filed a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act against Dalmia Industries Ltd. and its Chairman and Managing Director for dishonour of post‑dated cheques. A Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons against the respondents under CrPC s.204, but later recalled the order for the Chairman…
DILIP S. DAHANUKARversusKOTAK MAHINDRA CO. LTD. AND ANR.
2007 INSC 40410 April 2007Case Partly allowed
The appellants, Dilip S. Dahanukar and Goodvalue Marketing Co. Ltd., were convicted under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and were ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000 and a compensation of Rs.15,00,000 under Section 357(3) of the CrPC. The trial court also directed the appellants to d…
SAKETH INDIA LTD. AND ORS.versusINDIA SECURITIES LTD.
1999 INSC 9510 March 1999Dismissed
The appellants issued cheques that bounced, and the respondent served a notice demanding payment on 29 September 1995. Under Section 138(c) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellants had 15 days to pay, which expired on 14 October 1995, giving rise to a cause of action on 15 October 1995. The respondent filed a …
M/S. KALAMANI TEX & ANRversusP. BALASUBRAMANIAN
2021 INSC 7210 February 2021Dismissed
M/s. Kalamani Tex & Anr and its managing partner B. Subramanian issued a cheque of Rs 11.20 lakhs to P. Balasubramanian, which was later dishonoured. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed; the trial court acquitted the appellants, but the Madras High Court reversed the acquittal, con…
RAJESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS ETC.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER ETC.
2020 INSC 16010 February 2020Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, brothers residing in the UK, sought recovery of Rs.1.20 crore from their maternal uncle (appellant No.3) after the uncle advanced the sum for a land sale and later demanded repayment. The uncle issued four cheques, two of which were dishonoured; a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable I…
SHARAD KUMAR SANGHIversusSANGITA RANE
2015 INSC 96110 February 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Sharad Kumar Sanghi, Managing Director of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Ltd., was charged under Section 420 IPC for allegedly cheating a buyer by delivering a vehicle with a replaced engine after an accident. The complaint, filed under Section 200 of the CrPC, primarily alleged wrongdoing by the company but d…
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DHENKANAL MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, ORISSA, ETC. ETC.versusN.C. BUDHARAJ (DEAD) BY LRS. ETC. ETC.
2001 INSC 1610 January 2001Dismissed
The case concerned whether an arbitrator appointed, with or without court intervention, could award interest on sums due for the period before the arbitration reference (pre‑reference period) in disputes that arose before the Interest Act, 1978. The contractor’s award included interest from the due date to the date of …
K.K. SINGHAL & ORS.versusSTEEL STRIPS LTD.
2014 INSC 8459 December 2014Dismissed
The appellants K.K. Singhal & Ors. issued 33 cheques that were dishonoured, leading the respondent Steel Strips Ltd. to file 26 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The parties later entered into a settlement at Chandigarh, where the respondent agreed to withdraw the complaints in exchange fo…
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 …
RAJESH JAINversusAJAY SINGH
2023 INSC 8889 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed
Rajesh Jain alleged that he had advanced loans to Ajay Singh, who later issued a post‑dated cheque for repayment that was dishonoured for insufficient funds. Jain filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; the trial court acquitted Singh and the High Court upheld the acquittal. The Sup…
K.R. INDIRAversusDR. G. ADINARAYANA
2003 INSC 5369 October 2003Dismissed
The husband and wife (appellants) advanced loans to Dr. G. Adinarayana (respondent) who issued four cheques as repayment, two in each spouse's name. All cheques were returned unpaid and a single, consolidated notice demanding payment of the cheque amounts within 15 days was served on the respondent. The respondent did …
ELFIT ARABIA & ANR.versusCONCEPT HOTEL BARONS LIMITED & ORS.
2024 INSC 5369 July 2024Dismissed
The petitioners, a UAE entity, claimed that the respondents defaulted on payments under a 2004 MoU and invoked arbitration in 2022, eleven years after the alleged breach in 2011. The petition sought appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while criminal proceeding…
HAMMAD AHMEDversusABDUL MAJEED AND ORS.
2019 INSC 7419 July 2019Disposed off
The dispute concerned the authority of Hammad Ahmed, the appellant, to act as Chief Mutawalli of Hamdard Laboratories (India) after the Supreme Court, in its April 3, 2019 judgment (C.A. Nos. 3382‑3383), upheld his appointment but erroneously stated that the parties would continue with the "management" of Hamdard as pe…
DILIP HARIRAMANIversusBANK OF BARODA
2022 INSC 5399 May 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The Bank of Baroda had granted a loan to the partnership firm Global Packaging, which issued three cheques that were later dishonoured for insufficient funds. A complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the authorised signatory Simaiya Hariramani and his partn…
BASALINGAPPAversusMUDIBASAPPA
2019 INSC 5009 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Mudibasappa, issued a cheque for Rs.6,00,000 that was returned for insufficient funds, leading the complainant, Basalingappa, to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the complainant failed to prove his financial capacity…
SUMETI VIJversusM/S PARAMOUNT TECH FAB INDUSTRIES
2021 INSC 1729 March 2021Leave Granted & Dismissed
The appellant, Sumeti Vij, ordered non‑woven fabric from the respondent, received the goods and issued two cheques to pay the invoices. Both cheques were returned by the bank for insufficient funds; legal notices were served but the appellant neither responded nor paid within the statutory period, leading to two compla…
N.K. WAHIversusSHEKHAR SINGH AND ORS.
2007 INSC 2759 March 2007Dismissed
The appellant filed a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against Mis Western India Industries Ltd. and several of its directors, alleging joint liability for dishonoured cheques. The respondents contended they were not directors at the relevant time and that the complaint lacked spec…
SUNIL BHARTI MITTALversusCENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
2015 INSC 189 January 2015Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether a Special Judge could summon individuals who were not named in the CBI charge‑sheet in the 2G spectrum case, on the basis that they were the "alter ego" of the companies charged. The Court held that while a magistrate may summon a non‑named person if prima facie material exists, the S…
INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING & FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITEDversusB.P.L. LIMITED
2015 INSC 199 January 2015Dismissed
B.P.L. Ltd., facing severe financial distress, sought approval of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 of the Companies Act, 1956. Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Ltd. (the appellant) was a secured creditor with a hypothecation charge registered against B.P.L. but later argued that a consent arbitratio…
M/S. SURYALAKSHMI COTTON MILLS LTD.versusM/S. RAJVIR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ORS.
2008 INSC 319 January 2008Case Partly allowed
The appellant, Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd., and the respondent, Rajvir Industries Ltd., were parties to a demerger scheme after which blank cheques signed by the appellant’s Managing Director were handed to the respondents for business use. A dispute arose in 2005, leading the appellant to allege misuse of the chequ…
K.S. RANGANATHAversusVITTAL SHETTY
2021 INSC 8378 December 2021Dismissed
The appellant, K.S. Ranganatha, was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of a cheque issued to the respondent, Vittal Shetty, for a loan of Rs.3,75,000. The trial court acquitted the appellant, but the Karnataka High Court reversed the acquittal, finding that the respondent had …
MRS. ANITA MALHOTRAversusAPPAREL EXPORT PROMOTION COUNCIL & ANR.
2011 INSC 7898 November 2011Appeal(s) allowed
Anita Malhotra, a former non‑executive director of Lapareil Exports (P) Ltd., resigned on 31‑08‑1998. In 2004 the company issued cheques that were later dishonoured, and the Apparel Export Promotion Council filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, naming Malhotra as accused director. Malho…
M/S GIMPEX PRIVATE LIMITEDversusMANOJ GOEL
2021 INSC 6378 October 2021Case Partly allowed
M/S Gimpex Private Limited sued Manoj Goel for dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After the first set of cheques bounced, the parties entered into a deed of compromise in March 2013, under which new cheques were issued; those too were dishonoured, leading to a second criminal comp…
ANJALI RATHI AND OTHERSversusTODAY HOMES & INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS
2021 INSC 4608 September 2021Disposed off
The petitioners, home buyers in a Gurgaon housing project, obtained a refund order with interest from the NCDRC, which was stayed by the Delhi High Court. An operational creditor later initiated a corporate insolvency proceeding against the developer (Today Homes & Infrastructure Pvt Ltd) under Section 9 of the IBC, le…
BIRENDRA PRASAD SAHversusTHE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
2019 INSC 6498 May 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Bireendra Prasad Sah, received a bank memo on 4 December 2015 about two dishonoured cheques and issued a legal notice on 31 December 2015, within the 30‑day period prescribed by the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After unsuccessful attempts to obtain proof of service from the postal department, he sen…
ANEETA HADAversusM/S. GODFATHER TRAVELS & TOURS PVT. LTD.
2008 INSC 6108 May 2008Matter referred to larger bench
The appellant, an authorized signatory of M/s. Intel Travels, issued a cheque on behalf of the company which was later dishonoured. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, but the company was not named as an accused. The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition t…
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 …
SMT. KEYA MUKHERJEEversusMAGMA LEASING LIMITED & ANR.
2008 INSC 4658 April 2008Dismissed
The appellant, Smt. Keya Mukherjee, was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Although she was granted exemption from personal attendance under Section 205 of the CrPC, the trial court refused to dispense with her personal examination under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC. After the trial court, a revisio…
ALKA KHANDU AVHADversusAMAR SYAMPRASAD MISHRA & ANR.
2021 INSC 1648 March 2021Appeal(s) allowed
The complainant, a practising advocate, received a post‑dated cheque from the husband (original accused No.1) of the appellant for professional fees. The cheque was drawn on the husband’s personal bank account, signed by him, and later returned unpaid. A criminal complaint under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the…
IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATIONversus.
2021 INSC 1688 March 2021Disposed off
In a suo motu writ petition, the Supreme Court examined the extension of limitation periods granted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier orders had excluded the period from 15 March 2020 to a date to be fixed, allowing litigants extra time to file suits, appeals and other proceedings. Observing that the pandemic situa…
P. SURESH KUMARversusR. SHANKER
2007 INSC 2538 March 2007Disposed off
The appellant and respondent were partners in a firm with a joint bank account. The respondent allegedly withdrew Rs.12 lakh and later gave the appellant a post‑dated cheque of Rs.7 lakh as security under a police‑station compromise; the cheque was dishonoured and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrum…
HARSHENDRA KUMAR D.versusREBATILATA KOLEY ETC.
2011 INSC 1118 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The complainants placed orders with Rifa Healthcare (India) Pvt. Ltd. and issued demand drafts, but the company failed to deliver the goods and later issued 18 cheques that were dishonoured. The complainants filed complaints under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, implicating the company and one o…
A.V. MURTHYversusB.S. NAGABASAVANNA
2002 INSC 718 February 2002Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, along with two friends, advanced Rs 7.5 lakhs to the respondent about four years before the respondent issued a cheque on 30‑03‑1998, which was later dishonoured. The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the magistrate issued summons. The respondent o…
SUMIT BANSALversusM/S MGI DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS AND ANOTHER
2026 INSC 408 January 2026
The complainant, Sumit Bansal, entered into a sale agreement with MGI Developers and its proprietor Manoj Goyal, paying the full consideration. When the sale deeds were not executed, the parties issued several cheques—both from the firm and personally by the proprietor—which were subsequently dishonoured and statutory …
SURINDER SINGH DESWAL @ COL. S. S. DESWAL & ORS.versusVIRENDER GANDHI & ANR.
2020 INSC 218 January 2020Dismissed
The appellants, partners of a firm, issued numerous cheques to a retiring partner which were dishonoured, leading to 28 complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They were convicted and sentenced, but the appellate court suspended the sentence on condition that they deposit 25% of the compensation…
TAMEESHWAR VAISHNAVversusRAMVISHAL GUPTA
2010 INSC 208 January 2010Appeal(s) allowed
The case involved two cheques that were dishonoured and a notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was served on the drawer. The drawer received the first notice on 14 June 2006 but the payee did not file a complaint within the 15‑day period prescribed under Section 138(c). A second notice was sent…
VINAY DEVANNA NAYAKversusRYOT SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LTD.
2007 INSC 12467 December 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, a member of Ryot Seva Sahakari Bank, obtained a loan and issued a cheque that was later dishonoured, leading the bank to prosecute him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court convicted him, sentencing him to six months' imprisonment and ordering compensation; the conviction w…
M/S. EICHER TRACTOR LTD. AND ORS.versusHARIHAR SINGH AND ANR.
2008 INSC 12687 November 2008Dismissed
Eicher Tractor Ltd. and others filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash a criminal complaint filed by Harihar Singh under IPC sections 420, 468 and 471, alleging forgery. The petitioners argued that the complaint was a retaliatory "counter‑blast" to an earlier complaint they…
SOMNATH SARKARversusUTPAL BASU MALLICK & ANR.
2013 INSC 6867 October 2013Case Partly allowed
The appellant issued a cheque of Rs.69,500 that was dishonoured and was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, receiving a sentence of six months imprisonment and a compensation order of Rs.80,000 under Section 357(3) of the CrPC. The Calcutta High Court, on revision, set aside the imprisonment …
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.versusSAXONS FARMS AND ORS.
1999 INSC 4657 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed
The Central Bank of India sued Saxons Farms for issuing three cheques that were returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. The bank sent two written notices within fifteen days, each demanding payment and warning of criminal action if the cheques were again dishonoured. After the cheques were re-presented and still bou…
SRI DATTATRAYAversusSHARANAPPA
2024 INSC 5867 August 2024Dismissed
The appellant alleged that the respondent borrowed Rs. 2 lakh and issued a cheque as security, which later bounced for insufficient funds, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the respondent, finding contradictions in the appellant's testimony, lack of ev…
HIMADRI CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.versusCOAL TAR REFINING COMPANY
2007 INSC 8167 August 2007Dismissed
Himadri Chemicals Industries Ltd entered into a contract with Coal Tar Refining Co. for supply of extra‑hard pitch coal, with payment to be made by an irrevocable Letter of Credit (LC) opened by the appellant. The appellant’s bank found discrepancies in the documents and, after the appellant waived them, the parties ag…
ANIL GUPTAversusSTAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR
2014 INSC 4707 July 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The petitioner, Anil Gupta, the Managing Director of Star India Pvt Ltd, appealed against a Delhi High Court order that quashed the summons issued to the company but allowed proceedings against him under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complaint alleged dishonour of cheques issued by t…
RANGAPPAversusSRI MOHAN
2010 INSC 2897 May 2010Disposed off
The appellant, a mechanic, borrowed Rs 45,000 from the respondent, an engineer, and issued a post‑dated cheque for repayment. The cheque was presented but the bank returned it with a "payment stopped by drawer" memo after the appellant gave stop‑payment instructions. He failed to honour the cheque within the statutory …
RENUKAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
2026 INSC 3277 April 2026Appeal(s) allowed
Renuka filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the second respondent, who had issued a cheque of ₹50 crore as part of a settlement agreement with her husband. The cheque was dishonoured with the remark "payment stopped by drawer" and Renuka served the statutory notice, leading to t…
M/S. INDUS AIRWAYS PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusM/S. MAGNUM AVIATION PVT. LTD. & ANR.
2014 INSC 3517 April 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, purchasers, issued post‑dated cheques as advance payment for aircraft parts ordered from the respondent supplier. The supplier cancelled the orders and returned the cheques, but the cheques were later presented and dishonoured, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, …
M/S. HARYANA STATE COOP. SUPPLY AND MARKETING A FEDERATION LTD .versusM/S. JAYAM TEXTILES & ANR.
2014 INSC 2547 April 2014Disposed off
The Haryana State Co‑op Supply and Marketing Federation supplied cotton bales to Jayam Textiles and the latter issued four cheques that later bounced for insufficient funds. The Federation filed complaints under Sections 138 and 140 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 420 of the IPC, but the Magistrate…
TEDHI SINGHversusNARAYAN DASS MAHANT
2022 INSC 2727 March 2022Case Partly allowed
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the appellant borrowed Rs.7 lakhs and issued a cheque which was dishonored. The appellant was convicted by the trial court, and the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court and the High Court. The Supreme Court conside…
GOAPLAST PVT. LTD.versusSHRI CHICO URSULA DSOUZA AND ANR.
2003 INSC 1537 March 2003Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Goaplast Pvt. Ltd., issued post‑dated cheques to the respondent and later instructed the drawee bank to stop payment before the dates on which the cheques became payable. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was dismissed by the lower courts on…
PRADEEP KUMAR AND ANOTHERversusPOST MASTER GENERAL AND OTHERS
2022 INSC 1567 February 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants purchased Kisan Vikas Patras (KVPs) in joint names and, relying on an agent named Rukhsana, handed the certificates to her for transfer. Rukhsana encashed the KVPs at a different post office and received Rs. 25,54,000 in cash, which she kept. The appellants filed a consumer complaint; the NCDRC dismissed…
VIJAYversusLAXMAN AND ANR.
2013 INSC 817 February 2013Dismissed
The appellant Vijay lodged a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that respondent Laxman had issued a cheque to repay a personal loan of Rs.1,15,000, which was later dishonoured for insufficient funds. Laxman contended that the cheque was a security deposit taken as part of a customary…
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…
K. HYMAVATHIversusTHE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
2023 INSC 8116 September 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant K. Hymavathi loaned Rs 20 lakh to respondent No.2, who executed a promissory note on 25 July 2012 promising repayment by December 2016. The respondent later issued a cheque for Rs 10 lakh on 28 April 2017, which was dishonoured, leading the appellant to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable…
NARSINGH DAS TAPADIAversusGOVERDHAN DAS PARTANI AND ANR.
2000 INSC 4366 September 2000Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Narsingh Das Tapadia, lent Rs. 2,30,000 to the respondent, G.D. Partani, who issued a post‑dated cheque that was dishonoured on 6 October 1994. After serving a notice on 26 October 1994, the appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 8 November 1994, which was retu…
M/S FIXITY PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. & ORS.versusUDYEN JAIN (HUF)
2009 INSC 10216 August 2009Disposed off
The respondent filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for recovery of Rs.2.66 crore on account of dishonoured cheques. The appellants sought leave to defend and the trial judge granted conditional leave, directing them to deposit Rs.2 crore within two months or have the leave revoked. The High Court upheld …
MAINUDDIN ABDUL SATTAR SHAIKHversusVIJAY D. SALVI
2015 INSC 4806 July 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant booked a flat with the respondent's company and paid Rs.74,200, for which the respondent later issued a cheque for refund. The cheque was drawn by the respondent in his personal capacity and was dishonoured, leading the appellant to issue a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and fi…
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIAversusM/S. ASIAN GLOBAL LTD. & ORS.
2010 INSC 3566 July 2010Dismissed
The Central Bank of India sued Asian Global Ltd., its sister concern, and several directors for offences under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, alleging that a cheque issued as a corporate guarantee was dishonoured. The trial court held the bank to be a holder in due course and rejected the direc…
K.K. AHUJAversusV.K. VORA AND ANR.
2009 INSC 8596 July 2009Dismissed
The appellant filed complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against a company and its officers, including the Deputy General Manager (first respondent), for dishonoured cheques. The trial court issued summons to all accused, but the Deputy General Manager sought quashing of the summons on the gro…
KIRSHNA TEXPORT & CAPITAL MARKETS LTD.versusILAA. AGRAWAL & ORS
2015 INSC 3866 May 2015Directions issued
The appellant issued a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act to a company whose cheque was dishonoured, but no separate notice was sent to the company's directors. A complaint was filed against the company and its directors under Sections 138 and 141. The Bombay High Court held that individual noti…
S.V.L.MURTHYversusSTATE REP. BY CBI, HYDERABAD
2009 INSC 7346 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The case involved six accused bank officials and businessmen charged with criminal conspiracy, cheating and corruption for allegedly abusing a cheque‑discounting facility of State Bank of India. The Special Judge and the High Court convicted all six under Sections 120‑B and 420 of the IPC and, for three of them, under …
LALIT KUMAR SHARMA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ANR.
2008 INSC 5896 May 2008Case Allowed
Mis. Mediline India (P) Ltd obtained a loan of Rs.5,00,000 and issued two cheques which bounced for insufficient funds. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 IPC was filed against two directors, Ashish Narula and Manish Arora, who were later convicted. While the case was pendin…
STANDARD CHARTERED BANKversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ETC.
2016 INSC 2986 April 2016Appeal(s) allowed
Standard Chartered Bank filed three complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against ABG Shipyard Ltd. and several of its directors for the dishonour of cheques issued to repay a Rs.200 crore loan. The Metropolitan Magistrate issued summons to the company and the directors, but the Bombay High Cou…
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…
BIR SINGHversusMUKESH KUMAR
2019 INSC 1496 February 2019Appeal(s) allowed
Bir Singh (complainant) advanced a Rs 15 lakh loan to Mukesh Kumar (accused) and received a cheque which was dishonoured for insufficient funds on two occasions. After a statutory notice went unanswered, a criminal complaint under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed. The trial court c…
DATARAM SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.
2018 INSC 1076 February 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant was charged under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 506 of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheating a complainant of over Rs. 37 lakh. During a seven‑month investigation he was never arrested, and when he sought to quash the FIR the High Court granted him time to appear before the t…
K.P.O. MOIDEENKUTTY HAJEEversusPAPPU MANJOORAN AND ANR.
1996 INSC 1916 February 1996Dismissed
The appellant‑defendant challenged the trial and Kerala High Court judgments that upheld a suit for recovery of Rs 1.5 lakhs on a promissory note (Ex A) executed for the transfer of 3 acres 44 cents of land and a building. The appellant contended that the note was purportedly for cash consideration, that the underlying…
S. NAGESHversusSHOBHA S. ARADHYA
2026 INSC 276 January 2026Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging dishonour of a cheque, but the complaint was filed two days after the statutory one‑month period. The magistrate took cognizance of the complaint on the same day it was filed, before any application for condonation of the dela…
B. SUNITHAversusTHE STATE OF TELENGANA & ANR.
2017 INSC 11755 December 2017Disposed off
The appellant, B. Sunitha, issued a cheque to the respondent advocate for legal fees, which the advocate later claimed were 16% of the compensation awarded by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The cheque was dishonoured and the advocate filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appellan…
JOHN K. ABRAHAMversusSIMON C. ABRAHAM & ANOTHER
2013 INSC 8035 December 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The respondent alleged that the appellant borrowed Rs.1,50,000 and issued a cheque which later bounced, invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court acquitted the appellant, finding the complainant's evidence riddled with contradictions and gaps, particularly regarding the loan amount, date, …
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
2020 INSC 6345 November 2020Appeal(s) allowed
A complaint was lodged in 1989 alleging adulteration of Dalda Vanaspati Ghee manufactured by Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL). The trial magistrate initially absolved the company’s directors and continued prosecution against the nominated officer, Nirmal Sen, who was later convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulter…
M/S. METERS AND INSTRUMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.versusKANCHAN MEHTA
2017 INSC 10095 October 2017Disposed off
The appellants, M/s. Meters and Instruments Private Ltd. and others, were charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonoured cheque to the complainant, Kanchan Mehta. The complainant refused to accept a demand draft, while the accused offered to pay the cheque amount with interest and…
FAKHRUDDIN AHMADversusSTATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ANR.
2008 INSC 10185 September 2008Disposed off
The appellant, a poultry farmer, was accused by a complainant of forging a cheque and was charged under IPC sections 420, 467, 468 and 471. The complainant claimed the cheque was a blank cheque misplaced by a third party, while the appellant alleged the cheque was fraudulently used. The Judicial Magistrate, instead of …
M/S APEX DISTRIBUTORS & ANR.versusM/S TIMEX GROUP INDIA LTD.
2014 INSC 5235 August 2014Case Allowed
Apex Distributors and another issued a cheque on Vyasa Bank, Vellore, to Timex Group India Ltd., which was later dishonoured at Vellore. Timex sent statutory demand notices from Delhi and filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a Delhi court. The petitioners filed a transfer pe…
SREE MAHESH STATIONARIES & ANR.versusINDIABULLS FINANCIAL SERVICES. LTD.
2014 INSC 5245 August 2014Case Allowed
The petitioners borrowed Rs.15 lakh from the respondent company and issued a cheque for partial repayment, drawn on a Bangalore bank but presented for encashment in Gurgaon, where it was dishonoured. The respondent served statutory notices from Gurgaon and filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrumen…
CHRISTOPHER RAJversusK VIJAYAKUMAR
2019 INSC 7265 July 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant borrowed Rs 30,000 from the respondent and issued a post‑dated cheque dated 04‑09‑2003, which was presented after three years and returned for insufficient funds. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; the trial court acquitted the appellant, holding that the…
V. K. .BANSALversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
2013 INSC 4425 July 2013Case Partly allowed
V.K. Bansal, a director of several companies, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing cheques that were dishonoured while repaying loans from Haryana Financial Corporation. He received multiple imprisonment terms and fines and sought a direction under Sections 427 and 482 of the Co…
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…
KUMARANversusSTATE OF KERALA & ANR.
2017 INSC 4475 May 2017Dismissed
The appellant was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and was ordered to pay Rs.2.75 lakh as compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a default imprisonment of one month for non‑payment. He served both the principal sentence and the default imprisonment, after …
RAJ KUMAR KHURANAversusSTATE OF (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR.
2009 INSC 6775 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant claimed that two blank cheques were stolen and reported the loss to his bank. The cheques were later filled and presented for payment, but the bank returned them with the remark that they were reported lost by the drawer. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act…
RADHEY SHYAM GARGversusNARESH KUMAR GUPTA
2009 INSC 6845 May 2009Dismissed
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the complainant's evidence was recorded by affidavit. The appellant later sought to have the complainant summoned again for examination in chief, invoking Section 145(2) of the Act, despite the affidavit already constituting …
VISHNU DUTT SHARMAversusDAYA SAPRA
2009 INSC 7025 May 2009Appeal(s) allowed
Vishnu Dutt Sharma sued Daya Sapra for recovery of a loan, while simultaneously filing a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a dishonoured cheque. The criminal trial resulted in an acquittal of Sapra. Sapra then sought to have the civil suit dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC,…
G. RAMESHversusKANIKE HARISH KUMAR UJWAL & ANR.
2019 INSC 4685 April 2019Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that a partnership firm, Vainqueur Corporate Services, and its partners issued several cheques that were dishonoured for insufficient funds after the appellant had performed data‑entry work. The complaint detailed the partnersh…
RAGHU LAKSHMINARAYANANversusM/S. FINE TUBES
2007 INSC 3795 April 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The complainant, a registered partnership firm, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that a cheque issued by a business concern named Fine Tubes was dishonoured. The complaint named several persons, including the appellant who was described as "in charge, Manager, Director" of …
STATE OF PUNJABversusMADAN LAL
2009 INSC 3165 March 2009Dismissed
The State of Punjab appealed a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that allowed the three convictions of Madan Lal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to run concurrently. The High Court had observed that the offences arose from the same family transaction involving different cheques and directed…
R. RAJESHWARIversusH.N. JAGADISH .
2008 INSC 3065 March 2008Dismissed
R. Rajeshwari filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act alleging a dishonoured cheque of Rs 1 lakh. The trial court convicted H.N. Jagadish, sentenced him to one month imprisonment and ordered compensation of Rs 2 lakh, of which Rs 1.75 lakh was to be paid to the complainant; the Sessions Co…
MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. AND ANR.versusRAJIV DUBEY
2008 INSC 13984 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The Managing Director of Team Finance Company filed a criminal complaint under IPC sections 406, 420, 294, 506 and 34 alleging breach of trust because Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services presented post‑dated cheques despite the debt being discharged by demand drafts as per a tripartite agreement. The appellant had e…
JIMMY JAHANGIR MADANversusBOLLY CARIYAPPA HINDLEY (D) BY LRS.
2004 INSC 6394 November 2004Appeal(s) allowed
The case involved two complaint proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the complainant died during trial, leaving heirs who had executed general powers of attorney. The heirs' attorneys filed applications under Section 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking permission to continue t…
VINAY KUMAR SHAILENDRAversusDELHI HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE AND ANR.
2014 INSC 5984 September 2014Dismissed
The Supreme Court examined complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in Delhi Metropolitan Magistrates, where cognizance was taken solely because statutory notices were issued from Delhi. The Delhi High Court had directed the return of such complaints, holding that the place of notice issuanc…
M/S. K.K. PLOYCOLOR INDIA LTD. & ORS.versusGLOBAL TRADE FINANCE LTD. & ANR.
2014 INSC 5984 September 2014Appeal(s) allowed
The case concerned complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the respondent companies against the appellants for dishonour of cheques. The issue was whether the presentation of a cheque for collection at a bank in Bombay or the issuance of a default notice from the complainant's location c…
SUKUversusJAGDISH & ANR.
2014 INSC 5984 September 2014Dismissed
The complainant presented a cheque, issued by the accused on a Karnataka bank, for collection at a Kerala bank and filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The question before the Supreme Court was whether the mere presentation of the cheque in Kerala, or the issuance of a notice demanding…
TIMES BUSINESS SOLUTION LTD.versusDATABYTE
2014 INSC 5984 September 2014Dismissed
The appellants filed complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in Delhi after cheques drawn on banks outside Delhi were presented for collection in Delhi and subsequently dishonoured. The notice of dishonour was also issued from Delhi. The Metropolitan Magistrate returned the complaints and t…
RAJNEESH AGGARWALversusAMIT J. BHALLA
2001 INSC 54 January 2001Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Rajneesh Aggarwal, presented three cheques drawn on Bank of Baroda by Bhalla Techtran Industries Ltd. and signed by its director, Amit J. Bhalla. The cheques were dishonoured and the appellant served a notice to the director, demanding payment within 15 days. After no payment was made, a criminal complai…
SUNIL TODI & ORS.versusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
2021 INSC 8233 December 2021Dismissed
The appellants, directors of a company, issued a post‑dated cheque as security for payment under a Power Supply Agreement, but the cheque was later presented and dishonoured after the company failed to pay for electricity supplied. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed, and the magis…
SMT. SHAMSHAD BEGUMversusB. MOHAMMED
2008 INSC 12333 November 2008Dismissed
The appellant, accused of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash proceedings in the Mangalore court, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction because the constituent acts of the offence occurred in different places (Bangalore and…
ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS.versusIL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED
2023 INSC 8673 October 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants, nine defendants in a commercial suit filed by IL and FS Financial Services Ltd, failed to file written statements within the 30‑day period (ending 8 March 2020) and the 120‑day outer limit (ending 6 June 2020). They sought an extension on 20 January 2021, invoking the Supreme Court's suo motu orders tha…
R. MOHANversusA.K. VIJAYA KUMAR
2012 INSC 2613 July 2012Disposed off
The accused R. Mohan was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque without sufficient funds and was sentenced to three months' simple imprisonment and ordered to pay Rs.5 lakh compensation to the complainant A.K. Vijaya Kumar under Section 357(3) of the CrPC, with an additional …
DAMODAR S. PRABHUversusSAYED BABALAL H.
2010 INSC 2603 May 2010Disposed off
The appellant and respondent were parties to commercial transactions in which five cheques issued by the appellant were dishonoured, leading to criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. After protracted litigation up to the Supreme Court, the parties reached a settlement and sought…
YOGENDRA PRATAP SINGHversusSAVITRI PANDEY & ANR.
2012 INSC 1613 April 2012Matter referred to larger bench
The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent for dishonoured cheques, after serving a statutory notice on 23‑09‑2008. The complaint was lodged on 07‑10‑2008, i.e., before the expiry of the 15‑day period prescribed in the proviso to Section 138(c). The magist…
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…
MILIND SHRIPAD CHANDURKARversusKALIM M. KHAN & ANR.
2011 INSC 1773 March 2011Dismissed
The appellant, claiming to be the sole proprietor of Vijaya Automobiles, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent who issued a cheque in the name of the firm that later bounced. The trial court and appellate court convicted the respondent, but the High Court set aside…
SATISH P. BHATTversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
2024 INSC 163 January 2024Dismissed
Satish P. Bhatt and Vishwanath R. Nayak, directors of Astral Glass Pvt Ltd, were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced to ten months imprisonment with a compensation liability of Rs.1.10 crore. They entered into a settlement undertaking on 3 July 2018 to pay Rs.4.63.5 lakh to the c…
SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIAversusM/S. SIBCO INVESTMENT PVT. LTD.
2022 INSC 33 January 2022Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined whether the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) communication dated 9 June 1997 to SIDBI was a binding directive under the RBI Act, 1934 and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and whether SIDBI was justified in withholding interest on bonds issued by CRB Capital. The Court held that RBI’s directions…
K.M. IBRAHIMversusK.P. MOHAMMED AND ANR.
2009 INSC 12742 December 2009Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant issued a cheque of Rs.95,000 to discharge a lawful debt, which was later dishonoured for insufficient funds. He was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced, with the conviction affirmed by the High Court. The parties subsequently settled their dispute and sought to comp…
MIS. RAHUL BUILDERSversusM/S. ARIHANT FERTILIZERS AND CHEMICAL AND ANR.
2007 INSC 11292 November 2007Dismissed
M/s. Rahul Builders entered into a construction contract with Mis. Arihant Fertilizers, which later defaulted on payments. The latter issued a cheque for Rs.1,00,000 that was returned unpaid because its account was closed. Rahul Builders sent a notice on 31‑Oct‑2000 demanding payment of the pending bills (Rs.8,72,409) …
V. RAJA KUMARIversusP. SUBHARAMA NAIDU AND ANR.
2004 INSC 6332 November 2004Dismissed
The appellant was charged under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonouring a cheque. The complainant sent a legal notice to the appellant, which was returned stamped "house locked". The trial magistrate dismissed the complaint on the ground that the notice was not served. The A…
VEERA EXPORTSversusT. KALAVATHY
2001 INSC 5532 November 2001Disposed off
The respondent issued eight cheques to the appellant in April 1995, which were dishonoured when presented in May 1995. After being asked for more time, the respondent altered the dates of the cheques to 1996 and presented them again in July 1996, where they were again dishonoured. The appellant filed a complaint under …
NOOR MOHAMMEDversusKHURRAM PASHA
2022 INSC 7792 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Noor Mohammed, issued a Rs.7,00,000 cheque to the respondent, Khurram Pasha, which was dishonoured, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial court ordered the appellant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143A, which he fa…
KISHAN RAOversusSHANKARGOUDA
2018 INSC 5612 July 2018Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant had given the accused a loan of Rs.2,00,000 and the accused issued a post‑dated cheque to repay it, which was later returned for insufficient funds. The trial court, applying the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, convicted the accused under Section 138, a decision affirmed b…
M/S. PREM CHAND VIJAY KUMARversusYASH PAL SINGH AND ANR.
2005 INSC 2442 May 2005Dismissed
The appellant, a supplier, issued a cheque to the respondents for goods supplied, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. After the first dishonour, the appellant served a legal notice demanding payment; the cheque was presented again at the respondents' request and dishonoured a second time, followed by a sec…
M.N. DAMANIversusS.K. SINHA AND ORS.
[2001] 3 S.C.R. 4152 May 2001Appeal(s) allowed
M.N. Daman filed a private complaint under Section 500 of the IPC alleging that S.K. Sinha and others made false and malicious imputations against him in a bail application, thereby defaming him. The magistrate, after recording Daman's sworn statement, issued summons to the respondents, finding a prima facie case of de…
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…
SUMAN SETHIversusAJAY K. CHURIWAL
2000 INSC 482 February 2000Dismissed
The appellant, Suman Sethi, issued a cheque of Rs.20,00,000 to the respondent, Ajay K. Churiwal, which was returned for insufficient funds. Within 15 days, the respondent served a notice demanding the cheque amount plus incidental and notice charges. The magistrate held the notice invalid because the demand exceeded th…
MOHINDRA HIRE PURCHASEversusJARNAIL SINGH . ,
2008 INSC 13691 December 2008Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Mohindra Hire Purchase, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act leading to the accused's acquittal. The appellant then sought special leave to appeal the acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the applicatio…
M/S S.S. PRODUCTION AND ANR. P1: M/S S. S. PRODUCTION P2: TR. S. SUBBIAHversusTR. PAVITHRAN PRASANTH
2024 INSC 10591 October 2024Dismissed
The petitioners, a film production company and its proprietor, borrowed Rs 41.28 lakh in five instalments from the complainant on a hand‑loan basis at 2% per month interest and issued five cheques to discharge the debt, which were returned for insufficient funds. The complainant filed five complaints under Section 138 …
STATE BANK OF HYDERABADversusRABO BANK
2015 INSC 7241 October 2015Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, RABO Bank, sued State Bank of Hyderabad (SBH) in a summary suit under Order 37 of the CPC, claiming payment on several Bills of Exchange that SBH had allegedly accepted via telex/fax messages. SBH denied liability, asserting that the co‑acceptances were unauthorized, that the Bills lacked proper signatur…
NITINBHAI SAEVATILAL SHAH & ANOTHERversusMANUBHAI MANJIBHAI PANCHAL & ANOTHER
2011 INSC 6311 September 2011Disposed off
The appellants were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in a summary trial before a Metropolitan Magistrate. After the magistrate recorded the substance of evidence, he was transferred and his successor proceeded with the trial relying on the recorded evidence, convicting the appellants. The a…
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…
SUNITA PALITA & OTHERSversusM/S PANCHAMI STONE QUARRY
2022 INSC 7751 August 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The petitioners, who were independent, non‑executive directors of MBL Infrastructure Ltd., were impleaded as accused in a complaint under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of an account‑payee cheque signed by the company’s managing director. They filed a criminal revision under Se…
DASHRATH RUPSINGH RATHODversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
2014 INSC 5141 August 2014Disposed off
The Supreme Court examined the proper territorial jurisdiction for criminal complaints filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It held that the offence is completed when a cheque is dishonoured by the drawee bank, and therefore the court having jurisdiction over the place where the cheque is dishonou…
SUBODH S. SALASKARversusJAYPRAKASH M. SHAH & ANR.
2008 INSC 8901 August 2008Case Allowed
The appellant had taken a loan and issued post‑dated cheques which were later dishonoured; a legal notice was sent on 17‑01‑2001 and a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed on 20‑04‑2001, later amended to include Section 420 IPC. The High Court held that the amendment to Section 142(b)…
D. PURUSHOTAMA REDDY & ANR.versusK. SATEESH
2008 INSC 8941 August 2008Case Partly allowed
The appellants issued cheques for a Rs 2,00,000 loan which were dishonoured, leading to criminal proceedings under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They were convicted, fined Rs 2,10,000 and the criminal court, invoking Section 357 of the CrPC, directed that Rs 2,00,000 be paid as compensation to…
VEER PRAKASH SHARMAversusANIL KUMAR AGARWAL AND ANR.
2007 INSC 8011 August 2007Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Veer Prakash Sharma, entered into a contract to purchase welding rods from the respondents but failed to pay the full price and issued two cheques that were later dishonoured. The respondents filed a criminal complaint alleging offences under Sections 402, 406, 409 and 417 of the IPC, and a Special Judic…
NISHANT AGGARWALversusKAILASH KUMAR SHARMA
2013 INSC 3821 July 2013Dismissed
The complainant, a resident of Bhiwani, presented a cheque drawn by the appellant on a Guwahati bank, which was stopped and returned unpaid. After sending a legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant filed a complaint in the Judicial Magistrate Court at Bhiwani, which initially he…
MRS. APARNA A. SHAHversusM/S. SHETH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. & ANR.
2013 INSC 3981 July 2013Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Mrs. Aparna A. Shah, challenged criminal proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for a cheque dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The cheque was issued by her husband from a joint account and was signed only by him. The Supreme Court examined whether a joint account h…
SUDHIR KUMAR BHALLAversusJAGDISH CHAND ETC. ETC.
2008 INSC 5681 May 2008Disposed off
Sudhir Kumar Bhalla, a partner of a trading firm, issued six cheques to Jagdish Chand and his wife Ramesh Rani for payment of goods. Five of the cheques were dishonoured, leading the respondents to file complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and various provisions of the IPC. The trial court acq…
ASHOK SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. R1: STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH R2: RAVINDRA PRATAP SINGH
2025 INSC 4271 April 2025Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Ashok Singh, claimed he had advanced a loan of Rs.22,00,000 to the accused, who issued a cheque that was later dishonoured with a ‘payment stopped by drawer’ endorsement. The appellant presented the cheque, sent a statutory notice within the prescribed period, and filed a complaint under Section 138 of t…
M/S FROST INTERNATIONAL LIMITEDversusM/S MILAN DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS (P) LIMITED & ANR.
2022 INSC 3801 April 2022Appeal(s) allowed
The plaintiff, a mining company, sued the defendant for a declaration that a Rs 56‑lakh cheque, given as security under a memorandum of understanding, was not payable because the defendant failed to protect the plaintiff’s port licence. The defendant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of…
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…
M/S. BLS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITEDversusM/S. RAJWANT SINGH & OTHERS
2023 INSC 1871 March 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, BLS Infrastructure Ltd., filed eight complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondents. The complainant’s statement and cross‑examination were recorded, and the trial court closed the complainant’s evidence, directing the case to proceed to defence evidence and an app…
P. MOHANRAJ & ORS.versusM/S. SHAH BROTHERS ISPAT PVT. LTD.
2021 INSC 1331 March 2021Disposed off
The appellant company failed to honour multiple cheques, leading the respondent to issue statutory notices under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and file criminal complaints. While the corporate debtor was placed under a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), the…
N PARAMESWARAN UNNIversusG KANNAN AND ANOTHER
2017 INSC 1941 March 2017Disposed off
The appellant, N. Parameswaran Unni, presented two cheques drawn by the first respondent, G. Kannan, which were returned unpaid and received a bank intimation on 8 April 1991. He issued a statutory notice by registered post on 12 April 1991, which was returned marked "addressee absent," and a second notice on 4 May 199…
B V SESHAIAHversusTHE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR
2023 INSC 931 February 2023Appeal(s) allowed
The appellants were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a private complaint by Respondent No.2. While a revision petition was pending, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) providing for amicable settlement or arbitration, and obligating Respondent No.2 to file a compr…
JIK INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ORS.versusAMARLAL V. JUMANI AND ANOTHER
2012 INSC 601 February 2012Dismissed
The appellants sought to have criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, read with Section 141, dismissed on the ground that a scheme of compromise approved under Section 391 of the Companies Act had automatically compounded the offences. The Supreme Court examined whether the sanction of …
KOLLA VEERA RAGHAV RAOversusGORANTALA VENKATESWARA RAO AND ANR.
2011 INSC 881 February 2011Appeal(s) allowed
The appellant, Kolla Veera Raghav Rao, had been convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He was later prosecuted under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code for the same set of facts. The central issue was whether Section 300(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which bars a person from b…
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…