16 Jun 2019 12:12 PM GMT
Section 148 NI Act Retrospective [Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal vs. Virender Gandhi] In this case, the Supreme Court held that Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as amended, shall be applicable in respect of the appeals against the order of conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, even in a case where the criminal complaints...
Section 148 NI Act Retrospective
[Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs. State of Gujarat]
The Supreme Court has held that subsequent filling in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration and even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.
[Ripudaman Singh vs. Balkrishna]
The Supreme Court has observed that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable when there is dishonour of cheques issued under and in pursuance of the agreement to sell.
hat admittedly the cheques were issued under and in pursuance of the agreement to sell. Though an agreement to sell does not create any interest in immovable property, it nonetheless constitutes a legally enforceable contract between the parties to it, the court added.
In this case the three cheques issued by the accused were presented by the complainant, and after they were dishonoured, a notice was issued to the accused on 31.08.2009 demanding the repayment of the amount. Thereafter, these cheques were again presented, which were dishonoured again. The complainant issued a statutory notice on 25.01.2010 and later filed the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the second statutory notice.
The Apex Court held that a 'cheque bounce' complaint filed based on the second statutory notice issued after re-presentation of cheques, is maintainable
[ANSS Rajashekar vs. Augustus Jeba Ananth]
[AR Radha Krishna vs. Dasari Deepthi]
The Supreme Court has reiterated that, a 'cheque bounce' complaint against a Company and its Director, must contain a specific averment that the Director was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the time when the offence under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act was committed.
Kishan Rao vs. Shankar Gouda
[B. Sunitha vs. State of Telengana]
The Supreme Court, in this case held that, that a fee amount claim by a lawyer based on percentage of subject matter in litigation cannot be the basis of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
[Kumaran vs. State of Kerala]
[N Parameswaran Unni vs G Kannan]
[N. Harihara Krishnan vs. J. Thomas]
The Supreme Court held that the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is person specific. It was also clarified that the general concept under Cr.P.C that cognizance was taken against the offence and not against the offender was not appropriate in prosecution under NI Act. The complainant in the case was issued a cheque, which was signed by one Harihara Krishnan. The cheque was drawn allegedly in discharge of balance sale consideration payable by M/s Norton Granites Pvt. Ltd. However, the cheque was in fact drawn on account of another private limited company, M/s Dakshin Granites Pvt.Ltd., in which also Harihara Krishnan was a director.
Complaint Not Maintainable Before Expiry of 15 Days Notice Period