The Supreme Court of India has passed several landmark judgments on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act), which deals with the offence of cheque bounce. Some of the most important judgments are:
Premchand vs. State of Maharashtra (2003): This judgment held that upon a notice under Section 138 of the NI Act being issued, a subsequent presentation of a cheque and its dishonour would not create another 'cause of action' which could set the Section 138 machinery in motion.
Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan (2005): This judgment held that the drawer of a cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act if the cheque is dishonoured due to an act of the payee, such as giving a wrong payee's name or refusing to return the cheque.
M.P.P. Ltd. vs. Medchil Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. (2001): This judgment held that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is a compoundable offence, meaning that the parties can mutually agree to settle the matter without going to court.
State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh Chand Jain (2012): This judgment held that the drawer of a cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act if the cheque is dishonoured due to a technical defect, such as a spelling mistake in the payee's name.
Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat (2022): This judgment held that a cheque is only considered to be dishonoured if it on the day of its maturity or presentation, "represents a legally enforceable debt."
The latest Supreme Court of India judgments on Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) are:
In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act 1881 (2022): This judgment directed all High Courts to ensure that cases under Section 138 of the NI Act are disposed of expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Dilbagh Singh vs. State of Punjab (2022): This judgment held that the drawer of a cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act if the cheque is dishonoured due to a technical defect, such as a spelling mistake in the payee's name. However, the Court also held that the drawer can be held liable if the payee has waived the defect.
Ravikant Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2022): This judgment held that the drawer of a cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act if the cheque is dishonoured due to a forgery committed by the payee.
These are just some of the latest judgments that have been passed by the Supreme Court on Section 138 of the NI Act. These judgments continue to clarify the law and ensure that it is applied fairly and consistently.
In addition to these judgments, the Supreme Court has also issued several other important rulings on cheque bounce cases in recent years. For example, in the case of Gajanand Burange vs. State of Maharashtra (2022), the Court held that a company can be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act even if the cheque was issued by an individual director on behalf of the company.
The Supreme Court's judgments on cheque bounce cases are constantly evolving, as the Court seeks to balance the interests of creditors and debtors. These judgments are an important source of guidance for lawyers and judges who deal with these cases.
In addition to these landmark judgments, the Supreme Court has also issued several other important rulings on cheque bounce cases. For example, in the case of Ravikant Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2019), the Court held that the drawer of a cheque cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the NI Act if the cheque is dishonoured due to a forgery committed by the payee.
The Supreme Court's judgments on cheque bounce cases have had a significant impact on the law and practice in this area. They have helped to protect the interests of honest creditors and ensure that unscrupulous debtors are held accountable for their actions.
Sources
www.pathlegal.in/-Top-5-Judgments-on-Negotiable-Instrument-Act-blog-1294920
www.soolegal.com/roar/15-landmark-judgment-on-section-138-negotiable-instrument-3