Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal procedure

SUMIT BANSAL versus M/S MGI DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS AND ANOTHER

Where cheques are distinct negotiable instruments presented and dishonoured on different dates and followed by independent statutory notices, each dishonour gives rise to a separate cause of action under Section 138 NI Act; disputed factual questions about whether instruments were alternative or substituted securities cannot be decided under Section 482 CrPC at the threshold, and therefore the High Court erred in quashing Complaint Case No.3298/2019 while it correctly declined to quash other complaints which prima facie disclosed ingredients of s.138.

Source excerpt

  • Section 482 crpc
  • Section 138 ni act
  • Section 139 ni act
  • Quashing of criminal proceedings
  • Dishonour of cheque
  • Statutory notice
Read case analysis
Negotiable instruments act

DHANASINGH PRABHU versus CHANDRASEKAR & ANOTHER

The High Court erred in quashing the complaint for non-impleadment of the partnership firm or non-issuance of notice to it; because a partnership firm is a compendious name for its partners and partners are jointly and severally liable, notice to and prosecution of the partners suffices and any defect can be cured by permitting impleadment of the firm; accordingly the High Court order was set aside and the complaint restored with permission to arraign the firm.

Source excerpt

  • Section 138 ni act
  • Section 141 ni act
  • Liability of partners
  • Separate legal entity vs firm
  • Statutory notice under s.138
  • Arraignment of firm as accused
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

S.C. GARG versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

The appeal is allowed and criminal proceedings against the appellant are quashed because the prosecution relied on allegations that were precisely the respondent's defence in earlier NI Act proceedings (triggering res judicata), and because the transactions and instruments were between companies so that under s.141 NI Act vicarious liability requires the company to be arraigned; prosecution of the individual without specific allegations or arraignment of the company was unsustainable.

Source excerpt

  • Section 482 crpc
  • Section 138 ni act
  • Section 141 ni act
  • Section 420 ipc
  • Res judicata
  • Vicarious liability
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

K.S. MEHTA versus M/S MORGAN SECURITIES AND CREDITS PVT. LTD.

The Appellants being non-executive directors who did not sign or issue the dishonoured cheques, and in the absence of specific averments in the complaints demonstrating that they were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business at the relevant time, they cannot be held vicariously liable under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; therefore the criminal proceedings against them are quashed.

Source excerpt

  • Director’s liability under section 141 of ni act
  • Vicarious liability
  • Non-executive director’s liability
Read case analysis
Negotiable instruments act

M/S NARESH POTTERIES versus M/S AARTI INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER

The Supreme Court held that the complaint, filed in the name of the payee firm through its manager and power-of-attorney holder, satisfied Section 142 of the NI Act because the Letter of Authority, the affidavit in support of the complaint and the affidavit of evidence under Section 200 Cr.P.C. cumulatively showed that the manager was duly authorised and had personal knowledge of the transactions; the High Court erred in quashing the summoning order under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the matter should proceed to trial where any dispute over authorisation or knowledge can be adjudicated.

Source excerpt

  • Section 138 ni act
  • Section 142 ni act
  • Section 200 cr.p.c.
  • Section 482 cr.p.c.
  • Cognizance of offence
  • Power of attorney holder
Read case analysis
Negotiable instruments act

M/S S.S. PRODUCTION AND ANR. P1: M/S S. S. PRODUCTION P2: TR. S. SUBBIAH versus TR. PAVITHRAN PRASANTH

The petitioners failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 because they did not adduce evidence to show the amounts were investments in a joint film production rather than a legally enforceable debt; receipt of the money was not denied and cheques were issued and returned 'funds insufficient', hence convictions under Section 138 were upheld; sentences for the related offences were ordered to run concurrently by exercise of judicial discretion.

Source excerpt

  • S.138 ni act
  • S.139 ni act
  • Statutory presumption
  • Onus of proof
  • Dishonour of cheque
  • Concurrent sentences
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

A.S. PHARMA PVT. LTD. versus NAYATI MEDICAL PVT. LTD. & ORS.

The High Court erred in invoking Section 482 Cr.P.C. together with Section 147 N.I. Act to compound the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act without the consent of the complainant; compounding under Section 147 requires the complainant's consent and Section 482 cannot be used to circumvent that statutory requirement. However, in the specific factual matrix where the accused had deposited the amount (Rs.6,50,000) with interest and an additional sum (Rs.1,00,000) and expressed readiness to settle, the Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 to quash Complaint Case No.5564 of 2022 and al…

Source excerpt

  • Section 482 cr.p.c.
  • Section 147 n.i. act, 1881
  • Section 138 n.i. act, 1881
  • Article 142 constitution of india
  • Compounding of offence
  • Consent of complainant
Read case analysis
Criminal law

RAJESH JAIN versus AJAY SINGH

Because the cheque issuance/signature was admitted and Section 139 presumption operated, the evidential burden lay on the accused who failed to discharge it; both courts below misdirected by placing the burden on the complainant, and on reappraisal the accused was convicted under Section 138 NI Act and sentenced as ordered.

Source excerpt

  • Section 138 ni act
  • Section 139 ni act
  • Presumption of law
  • Burden of proof
  • Evidential burden
  • Reverse onus
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

ADITYA KHAITAN & ORS. versus IL AND FS FINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED

The Court held that by virtue of the order dated 08.03.2021 (and subsequent orders) in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 must be excluded for computing limitation and the outer limits within which courts can condone delay; applying that exclusion to the present facts, the applications filed on 20.01.2021 were within time and the High Court erred in rejecting them, so the written statements filed on 20.01.2021 must be taken on record.

Source excerpt

  • Extension of limitation
  • Written statement filing timelines
  • Order 8 rule 1 cpc as amended for commercial disputes
  • Condonation of delay
  • Suo motu extension of limitation
Read case analysis
Negotiable instruments act

RAJARAM S/O SRIRAMULU NAIDU (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS. versus MARUTHACHALAM (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH L.RS

Criminal appeals allowed: the accused had rebutted the presumption under Section 139 NI Act on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and the High Court was not justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal; Civil appeals dismissed but High Court decrees were modified to restrict recovery to amounts already deposited by appellants with interest.

Source excerpt

  • Section 138 ni act
  • Section 139 ni act
  • Presumption of discharge of debt
  • Standard of proof: preponderance of probabilities
  • Adverse inference
  • Promissory notes
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.