Sahayata & Sahayata

Cheque Bounce Case Against Partners Maintainable Even Without Naming Partnership Firm as Accused: Supreme Court Citation: Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar & Anr., 2025 INSC 831 Date of Judgment: 14 July 2025 Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma Applicable Law: Section 138 & 141 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 | Indian Partnership Act, 1932 🧩 Case Insight in Simple Terms: 🧑‍⚖️ Background: Dhanasingh Prabhu lent ₹21 lakhs to a partnership firm Mouriya Coirs (through partners Chandrasekar & another). A cheque was issued by one of the partners on behalf of the firm . The cheque got dishonoured because the firm's account was frozen. Dhanasingh filed a criminal complaint only against the two partners , not the firm , under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The Madras High Court quashed the complaint, saying the firm was not made an accused , hence invalid under Section 141 . 🧑‍⚖️ Supreme C...

The Supreme Court in M/S Mandvi Co-op Bank Ltd v. Nimesh B. Thakore , AIR 2010 SC 1402, decisively interpreted Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , emphasizing expedited trial procedure for cheque dishonour cases under Section 138 . The Court resolved pivotal issues regarding the scope of evidence by affidavit , the rights of the accused , and the retrospective application of amended procedural provisions. ⚖️ Background: Numerous petitions filed under Section 482 CrPC prompted the Gujarat High Court to answer: Whether Section 145(2) grants an accused the right to insist on oral examination-in-chief despite affidavit evidence. Whether amended Section 145 (inserted by 2002 amendment) applies to pending cases (retrospectively). 🧑‍⚖️ Supreme Court’s Key Findings: 1. Right of Accused Under Section 145(2): Not Absolute for Examination-in-Chief : If a witness gives evidence on affidavit under Section 145(1), the accused can cross-examine them under Sec...

  Cheque Bounce, Contradictions & Acquittal: SC Upholds Accused’s Innocence in ₹2 Lakh NI Act Case In a landmark decision reaffirming principles of criminal jurisprudence and statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 , the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal filed by Sri Dattatraya , thereby upholding the acquittal of the accused, Sharanappa , in a cheque bounce case involving a sum of ₹2,00,000 . 🏛️ Case Snapshot: Case Title : Sri Dattatraya vs. Sharanappa Judgment Date : 7th August 2024 Bench : Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih Citation : 2024 INSC 586 Provision Involved : Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 📌 Background: The appellant (complainant) claimed to have lent ₹2,00,000 to the respondent (accused) based on a personal acquaintance. A cheque was issued as a guarantee for repayment, along with a signed agreement. The cheque bounced due to “insufficient funds” and a le...

The case "Ashok Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr." is a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of India concerning an alleged dishonored cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India  emphasizes the statutory presumption in favor of the complainant under Sections 118 and 139,  burden of proving a valid defence lies on the accused, particularly in cheque dishonor cases. Key Details: Facts of the case: Ashok Singh (appellant) lent Rs. 22,00,000 to Ravindra Pratap Singh (respondent), who issued a cheque for the same amount, which was dishonored with the endorsement "payment stopped by drawer." Despite a legal notice, the respondent did not return the money. Lower Court Proceedings: The Trial Court found the respondent guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him to one-year imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 35,00,000, and compensation of Rs. 30,00,000 to the a...

  Introduction The case of HDFC Bank Limited vs. Amit Kumar Singh (2009) revolves around the dishonor of a cheque and the subsequent legal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The primary issue for consideration was whether a complaint under Section 138 could be dismissed at the pre-summoning stage due to the lack of proof of service of the legal notice to the drawer of the dishonored cheque. Summary HDFC Bank filed a complaint against Amit Kumar Singh after his cheque of ₹19,083 was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The bank sent a legal notice to Singh, but it did not receive any acknowledgment or return of the notice. The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the complaint, stating that the bank failed to prove that the notice was served. HDFC Bank appealed, arguing that service of notice should be presumed under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Analysis of Precedents Cited The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments,...

Case Title: K.S. Mehta vs. M/S Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. Court: Supreme Court of India Judgment Date: 4th March 2025 Case Number: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 4774 of 2024 Background of the Case: Parties Involved: Appellant(s): K.S. Mehta and Basant Kumar Goswami Respondent: M/S Morgan Securities and Credits Pvt. Ltd. Company Involved: M/s Blue Coast Hotels & Resorts Ltd. Nature of Dispute: The case arises from an Inter-Corporate Deposit (ICD) agreement dated 9th September 2002 for ₹5 crore between the accused company and the respondent. To repay this deposit, two post-dated cheques were issued: Cheque No. 842628 (₹50 lakh) dated 28th February 2005 Cheque No. 842629 (₹50 lakh) dated 30th March 2005 Both cheques were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Criminal Proceedings: The respondent issued legal notices, but no action was taken by the company, leading to criminal proceedings under Section 138 read with Sec...