The Negotiable Instruments Act
- Yogendra Pratap Singh v. Savitri Pandey, (2014) 10 SCC 713
Supreme Court held that cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 cannot be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque in terms of Section 138 (c) of Negotiable Instruments Act 1881.
- AB Radha Krishna v. Dasari Deepthi, (2019) 15 SCC 550
Supreme Court held that, a ‘cheque bounce’ complaint against a Company and its Director, must contain a specific averment that the Director was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business at the time when the offence under Section 138/141 of Negotiable Instruments Act was committed.
- U PonnappaMoothan Sons v. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd., (1991) 1 SCC 113
The Indian definition of ‘holder in due course’ imposes a more stringent condition on the holder as laid down in English case of Gill v. Cubitt. Under the Indian law, a holder, to be a holder in due course, must not only have acquired the bill, note or cheque for a valid consideration but should have acquired the cheque without having sufficient cause to believe that any defect existed in the title of the person from whom he derived the title. This condition requires that he should act in good faith and with reasonable caution.
- MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappa, (2013) 10 SCC 568
Provisions of Negotiable Instrument Act does not forbid the holder or payee for encashment on any number of occasions within the period of validity. Prosecution on the basis of fresh cause of action arising out of subsequent presentation of cheque even when original cause of action was time barred was held permissible as long as conditions mentioned under Section 138 are satisfied.
