Home|Discussion Forum|Communities|Professional Search|Law Dictionary|Bare Acts|Law Schools|State Bare Acts|Free Judgement Search|Law quotes
Articles  |    Humor    |    Law Digest
Search Law digest:
K.S. Anto vs Union of India And Ors. (Ker HC)
The bar under Article 20(2) that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for same offence more than once cannot be said to be violated by Section 138.
K.S. Anto vs Union of India And Ors. (Ker HC)
Magistrate can try and decide that the cheque in question was in discharge of legally enforceable debt and for that he need not refer the matter to civil court and wait decision.
K.S. Anto vs Union of India And Ors. (Ker HC)
Whether the cheque is post-dated or not is immaterial. It becomes an offence only after the expiry of fifteen days from the date of written demand, if the amount is not paid on that date.
K.S. Anto vs Union of India And Ors. (Ker HC)
Offence under Section 138 is made when there is dishonor of Cheque drawn in discharge of liability, followed by written demand and failure to make payment.
Satish Kumar v. Krishna Gopal- on presentation of cheque more than once
A fresh right accrues in favour of the complainant every time cheque is dishonorned. Cheque can be presented twice or more times within a peirod of six months or the period of its validity.
S.K.D. Lakshmanan V. Sivarama Krishn & Anr- on fresh cause of action
Fresh Cause of Action. The payee or holder in due course is at liberty to present the cheque for payment till it is honoured within the period of six months or of its validity.
Mere dishonour of a Cheque itself would no give rise to a cause of action.
Company of Management For Baranager, Jute Facotry Vs. Atis Dipanker Chowdri- on cause of action
The date of cause of action is the date of expiry of 15 days of the receipt of the notice under clause (b) of the proviso, section 138.
Sudarshan Khaitna vs. Patehja Forging Auto Parts And Manufacturing Ltd- on cause of action
Offence is committed by the drawer of the Cheque immediately on the failure to make the payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice.
Hindustan Mills and Electricals Stores vs. Kedia Castle Delam Industries Ltd- on cause of action
When payment is made on receipt of notice of demand, in such event there would be no commission of offence
Narsingh Das Tadpadi vs. Goverdhan Das Partani- on pre-maturity of complaint
If the complaint is found to be pre-matured, court can await maturity to be returned to the complainant for filing later
Satish Kumar Goenka vs. S.R.K. Mohan- on limitation
Complaint on the basis of second cause of action can be held to be barred by limitation.
D.K. Goel vs. Dr. (Mrs.) Kamal Sujit- on verbal demand
Verbal demand can not be treated as demand within the meaning of proviso of Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
Lok Housing and Construction Ltd. vs. M/s DCM Daevoo Motors Ltd.- on burden of proof
The burden of proof that there is no existing debt or liability would be on the accused during the trial.
Satish Kumar Goenka vs. S.R.K. Mohan- on limitation
Section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to a complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act.
Page - 1 | 2



Privacy PolicyDisclaimer