Back
J. K. MAHESHWARI, ATUL S. CHANDURKAR
Renuka – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. On a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [For short, the N.I. Act], learned Metropolitan Magistrate on being satisfied that there was prima-facie material to proceed against the second respondent issued process on 17th June 2022. The second respondent invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court for challenging the said order. The Sessions Court was of the view that on the date of issuance of the cheque in question, there was no legally enforceable debt to be satisfied by the drawer. By the order dated 30th December 2022, it set aside the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate issuing process. The complainant approached the High Court of Bombay by filing a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and challenged the order passed by the Sessions Court. The learned Single Judge, however, dismissed the writ petition observing that no error of jurisdiction was found in the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the complainant has challenged the aforesaid orders in this Criminal Appeal.
3. Shorn of necessary details, the facts relevant for considering the challe
Surinder Kumar Mahajan vs Sardar Baljit Singh - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4956: This case cites multiple precedents positively ("State of U.P., (1996) 4 SCC 720 this Court is not precluded... Magma Leasing Ltd. (1999) 4 SCC 253; Laxmi Dychem v State of Gujarat and Ors. 2012 (13) SCC 375"), indicating these cited cases are being followed or relied upon as authoritative in the context of deciding appeals on merits despite non-appearance.
d_in_context>
Gurvinder Singh Toor vs Rohit Malhotra - 2025 0 Supreme(Del) 633: References "State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7702" with "had also observed as under" and cites "State (NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine SC 513," showing these cases are being referenced or quoted supportively regarding burden of proof, without negative treatment indicators.
Sureshbhai Bhadabhai Pansuriya VS State Of Gujarat - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1378: No treatment indicators present (e.g., no citations to other cases or phrases like "followed," "distinguished"). Appears as a standalone proposition on cheque enforceability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Categorized as uncertain due to lack of context on judicial treatment.
Krishna Valley Vineyard Private Limited vs Bank Of India, Bengaluru Main Branch - 2025 0 Supreme(Kar) 1626: Fragmented text discusses jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, ruling no cause of action arose in Karnataka. No keywords or phrases indicating treatment by subsequent cases (e.g., no "overruled," "followed"). Treatment unclear due to absence of referencing language.
Sunil Todi VS State of Gujarat - 2021 8 Supreme 614: States propositions on dishonour of cheques, debt definition, Section 202(2) Cr.P.C. inapplicability, and Section 141 NI Act. No indicators of how this case itself has been treated (e.g., no citations or treatment keywords). Uncertain as it reads as a summary of holdings without subsequent treatment signals.
Rajesh Jain VS Ajay Singh - 2023 7 Supreme 49: Articulates shifting burden under Section 139 NI Act. Lacks any treatment indicators (e.g., no "distinguished," "criticized"). Uncertain due to no evidence of how later cases have addressed it.
Rangappa VS Sri Mohan - 2010 4 Supreme 169: Discusses standard of proof under Section 139 NI Act ("preponderance of probabilities") and presumption of enforceable debt. No treatment keywords or citations indicating status. Uncertain for lack of explicit judicial treatment patterns.
(1) Dishonour of cheque – At stage of issuance of process, statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act cannot be dislodged in a summary manner merely by contending that cheque issued was not ....
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, cannot be rebutted at the pre-trial stage; such an exercise must be conducted during the trial, provided the compl....
A legally enforceable debt is essential for liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; cancellation of the underlying contract negates such liability.
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act shifts burden to accused to rebut by probable defence; trial court erred in requiring complainant to prove debt, rendering acquittal perverse in appeal.
Insufficient funds for a cheque issued to discharge a lawful liability establishes an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which includes a statutory presumption that must be ....
A drawer of a cheque may incur liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless they can sufficiently rebut the statutory presumptions of consideration and debt.
A mandatory presumption applies in dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring the accused to provide evidence to rebut the lawful liability for which a cheque was ....
The presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of i....
A cheque issued for payment in a contractual context constitutes a debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even if characterized as a penalty, and deemed service of notice is valid w....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
