T.S.THAKUR, GYAN SUDHA MISRA
LAXMI DYECHEM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent
T.S. THAKUR, J. — Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against orders dated 19th April, 2010 and 27th August, 2010 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad whereby the High Court has quashed 40 different complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the appellant against the respondents. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Vinod Tanna & Anr. v. Zaher Siddiqui & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 541, the High Court has taken the view that dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the signatures of the drawer of the cheque do not match the specimen signatures available with the bank, would not attract the penal provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. According to the High Court, the provisions of Section 138 are attracted only in cases where a cheque is dishonoured either because the amount of money standing to the credit to the account maintained by the drawer is insufficient to pay the cheque amount or the cheque amount exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from account maintained by the drawer by an agreement made with the bank. Dishonour of a cheque on the ground that the signatures of the drawer do not match the
Vinod Tanna & Anr. v. Zaher Siddiqui & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 541.
NEPC Micon Ltd. v. Magma Leasing Ltd. (1999) 4 SCC 253.
Swantraj v. State of Maharashtra (1975) 3 SCC 322.
State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami (1975) 4 SCC 745.
Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (1998) 3 SCC 249.
K.K Sidharthan v. T.P. Praveena Chandran (1996) 6 SCC 369.
Goaplast (P) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D’souza and Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 232.
National Small Industries Corporation Limited v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Anr. (2010) 3 SCC 330.
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla & Anr. (2005) 8 SCC 89.
Goaplast (P) Ltd. vs. Chico Ursula D’Souza And Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 232
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration (AIR 1965 SC 871).
M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and anr. (2002) 1 SCC 234.
Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441.
M.M.T.C. Ltd. And Anr vs. Medchl Chemical and Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr.(2002) 1 SCC 234.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.