Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Sri Dattatraya VS Sharanappa...
Checking relevance for Sunil Todi VS State of Gujarat...
Checking relevance for MSR Leathers VS S. Palaniappan...
2013 6 Supreme 513 : Yes, it is possible to present the same cheque on different dates with different values under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, provided that the cheque is presented within the validity period or six months, whichever is earlier, and the dishonour is followed by a proper notice under Section 138(b). The proviso to Section 138 allows for prosecution based on second or successive dishonour of the cheque, as long as the requirements of the proviso are satisfied. This implies that multiple presentations of the same cheque (even with different values if altered) are permissible, and prosecution can be initiated on the basis of subsequent dishonour, as demonstrated in the case where cheques were presented on 21st November 1996 and again on 21st January 1997, both resulting in dishonour.Checking relevance for Kamlesh Kumar VS State of Bihar...
2013 8 Supreme 777 : Yes, it is possible to present the same cheque on different dates with different values under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Supreme Court in MSR Leathers vs. S. Palaniappan & Anr. (2013) 1 SCC 177, cited in the document, has held that a payee has the right to present the same cheque for encashment a second time, even if it was previously dishonored. This right is available under the provisions of the Act. Furthermore, the Court clarified that if the cheque is presented again and dishonored, the payee may issue a fresh legal notice under clause (b) of the proviso to Section 138 within 30 days of receiving information from the bank about the return of the cheque as unpaid. This means that the presentation of the same cheque on a different date, even with a different value (if the cheque is reissued or altered), is legally permissible, provided the conditions of Section 138 are met at the time of the second presentation. The key point is that the cause of action for prosecution under Section 138 arises afresh upon the second dishonor, and the statutory timelines (notice within 30 days, payment within 15 days, complaint within one month of cause of action) are to be computed from the date of the second presentation and dishonor, not the first.Checking relevance for Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao VS Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited...
Checking relevance for Bijay Agarwal VS Medilines...
Checking relevance for Goaplast Pvt. LTD. VS Chico Ursula D''''Souza...
Checking relevance for Paul Mitra S/o Shri Anil Kumar Mitra VS State of Rajasthan through P. P. ...
2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 668 : Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability on the date of presentation (maturity) of the cheque is the determining factor for criminal liability. The Supreme Court has held that the relevant date for assessing whether a debt exists is the date mentioned in the cheque (i.e., the date of maturity or presentation), not the date of issuance. Therefore, it is legally permissible to present two cheques on the same date with different values, provided that each cheque represents a legally enforceable debt on its respective date of presentation. The key principle is that the debt must exist on the date the cheque is presented for encashment, regardless of whether the cheques were issued on different dates or have different values. The law does not prohibit presenting multiple cheques on the same date with varying amounts, as long as each cheque is supported by a valid, enforceable debt at the time of presentation.Checking relevance for Shaliwahan Singh Rathore S/o Shri Raj Singh Rathore VS State Of Rajasthan Through P. p. ...
2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 670 : Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the relevant date for determining the existence of a legally enforceable debt is the date of presentation (or maturity) of the cheque, not the date of issuance. This means that even if two cheques bear the same date but represent different values, the legal liability under Section 138 depends on whether there was a legally enforceable debt on the date of presentation. The Supreme Court has held that for an offence under Section 138 to be made out, there must be a legally enforceable debt at the time of cheque presentation, not merely at the time of issuance. Therefore, it is possible to present two cheques with the same date but different values, and each may independently attract liability under Section 138 if a legally enforceable debt exists on the date of presentation for each respective cheque.Checking relevance for Jairam Foundry Private Limited, rep. by its Director Nos. 2 to 4 VS State of Telangana...
Checking relevance for Ved Parkash VS Babu Ram Sharma...
Checking relevance for SAYA CHAUHAN, D/O SH. BHAGAT SINGH CHAUHAN VS ANKUSH ARORA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S FASHION POINT BOUTIQUE...
2022 0 Supreme(HP) 2 : Yes, it is possible to present two cheques on the same date with different values under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The legal document explicitly states that different cheques issued for discharging liability arising out of one and the same transaction are separate entities. Dishonour of each cheque constitutes a separate offence, and the complainant has the right to file a separate complaint for each dishonoured cheque, even if they were issued on the same date with different amounts. The court held that the issuance of cheques on different dates (or same date) and their subsequent dishonour leads to separate causes of action, and the payee may combine multiple instances in a single notice or file separate complaints. Therefore, presenting two cheques on the same date with different values is legally permissible and each dishonour gives rise to an independent cause of action under Section 138.
