Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.42 seconds)
Reserved On: 24.11.2025 vs Ganesh Dutt Sharma on 17 December, 2025 cites

Subodh S. Salaskar vs Jayprakash M. Shah & Anr on 1 August, 2008

"9. It is crystal clear from plain reading of Section 138 of the N.I. Act that the drawer of a cheque; if it fails to make the payment of the amount of the cheque to the payee within 15 days of the receipt of the demand notice, then the cognisance of the offence can be taken by a learned Judicial Magistrate for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The question arises what if, there is no document to suggest that the demand notice in writing given by the complainant-opposite party No. 2 has been served upon the drawer of the cheque, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Subodh S. Salaskar vs. Jayprakash M. Shah & Another reported in MANU/SC/3298/2008 : (2008) 13 SCC 689 and which principle of law has been reiterated by this ::: Downloaded on - 17/12/2025 20:37:26 :::CIS 18 2025:HHC:43992-DB Court in the case of Md. Siraj vs. State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No. 1677 of 2022 dated 21st of November, 2023; that the law is well settled that in case there is no material to suggest that such demand notice .
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 217 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Raj Kumar Khurana vs State Of (Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 5 May, 2009

of "16. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, this Court finds rt that the continuation of proceedings against the applicant would be wholly unwarranted in law. It stands admitted on record that the applicant had lodged a stop-payment request with his banker on 12.07.2016 in respect of the cheques in question, much prior to the alleged date of issuance, i.e. 05.12.2016. The bank's contemporaneous report dated 15.07.2016 confirms that the stop-payment instructions had been acted upon and charges debited. In such circumstances, the subsequent presentation of the cheque in December 2016, resulting in dishonour on the ground of "insufficient funds," cannot be treated as valid dishonour attracting the penal consequences of Section 138 NI Act. The ratio of Raj Kumar Khurana v. State (NCT of Delhi), MANU/SC/0727/2009: 2009:INSC:677 : (2009) 6 SCC 72, squarely applies. Once the cheque had been rendered incapable of encashment before the alleged date of issue, there is, in the eye of the law, no "issuance," and therefore no offence under Section 138 can be said to be made out.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 132 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next