1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court Upholds Section 138: Cheque Dishonor with Malintent is an Offense</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the importance of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in maintaining credibility in banking transactions. The ... - Issues Involved:The judgment involves the interpretation of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 regarding dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds in the accounts of the accused.Comprehensive Details:Issue 1: Complaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments ActThe appellant filed complaints u/s 138 for dishonour of a cheque due to insufficient funds. The complaint detailed the presentation of the cheque, dishonour by the bank, issuance of a notice to the accused, and failure of payment as required u/s 138(c). The accused's dishonest intention in instructing the bank to stop payment was highlighted, leading to liability u/s 138.Issue 2: Interpretation of Section 138 of the ActSection 138 penalizes dishonour of cheques for insufficiency of funds, introduced in 1988 to address such cases. The provision outlines the conditions for an offense, including presenting the cheque within six months, issuing a notice to the drawer, and failure to make payment within 15 days. The explanation clarifies 'debt or other liability' as legally enforceable.Issue 3: Dishonour of Cheque and Legal PresumptionsDishonour of a cheque drawn on an account for payment of a debt constitutes an offense u/s 138. The statutory presumption of dishonest intention arises if the drawer fails to pay within 15 days of receiving a notice post-dishonour. Instructions to the bank for non-payment after issuing the cheque amount to dishonour, fulfilling the requirements of Section 138.Issue 4: Judicial Interpretation and High Court's DecisionThe court rejected the argument that stoppage of payment does not constitute an offense u/s 138. The purpose of the provision is to prevent dishonesty in cheque transactions. The High Court's decision to quash the complaints was deemed incorrect as the ingredients of Section 138 were prima facie satisfied. The orders were set aside for expeditious trial without expressing an opinion on merits.In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of upholding the provisions of Section 138 to maintain credibility in banking transactions and prevent dishonest practices related to dishonoured cheques.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
