Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Phrase:NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 Section 17 Court:Supreme

May 06 2009

S.V.L. Murthy Vs. State Rep. by CBI, Hyderabad

  • Decided on : 06-May-2009

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2009SC2717; 2009CriLJ3930; JT2009(7)SC385; (2009)6SCC77; 2009AIRSCW4165

... Sections 120B, 420, 467, 471 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act inter alia alleging that cheques issued to SI were fraudulently discounted and amounts were drawn between 14.2.1989 and 1.5.1989.It is not in dispute that in the said complaint no allegation was made against the officers of the Bank. On or about 17 ... 1994, learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 120B, 420 IPC read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, Accused Nos. 4 to 6 were additionally charged with Section 13(1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.14. Before the learned Special Judge, a large number of witnesses were examined. They ... Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging inter alia that there was criminal conspiracy between the accused persons during 1988-89 to cheat SBI.13. On or about 7.2.1994, learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 120B, 420 IPC read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ... Act, 1988 alleging inter alia that there was criminal conspiracy between the accused persons during 1988-89 to cheat SBI.13. On or about 7.2.1994, learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 120B, 420 IPC read with Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, Accused Nos. 4 to 6 were additionally charged with Section ...

Jan 10 2001

Executive Engineer, Dhenkanal Minor Irrigation Division, Orissa, etc. ...

  • Decided on : 10-Jan-2001

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2001SC626; 2001(2)ALLMR(SC)260; (2001)3CALLT1(SC); 91(2001)CLT754(SC); JT2001(1)SC486; (2001)2MLJ128(SC); 2001(1)MPHT526; 2001(1)SCALE109; [2001]1SCR264

... such as Sale of Goods Act, 1930 [Section 61(2)], Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Section 80) etc. The provisions of the Interest Act 1839, which prescribes the general law of interest and becomes applicable in the absence of any contractual or other statutory provisions specially dealing with the subject, would also answer the description of substantive law. This Act was excluded from ... . Another instance where interest could be awarded was under Section 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act which provided for the award of interest to the seller or the buyer, as the case may be, under the circumstances specified in that section. 17. Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was mentioned as an instance of a provision of ... Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Section 80) etc. The provisions of the Interest Act 1839, which prescribes the general law of interest and becomes applicable in the absence of any contractual or other statutory provisions specially dealing with the subject, would also answer the description of substantive law. This Act was excluded from consideration for the simple reason that unlike the inclusive definition of 'Court' in 1978 Act ... . Another instance where interest could be awarded was under Sec. 61(2) of the Sale of Goods Act which provided for the award of interest to the seller or the buyer, as the case may be, under the circumstances specified in that section. 17. Section 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was mentioned as an instance of a provision of ...

May 07 2010

Reliance Natural Resources Ltd. Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.

  • Decided on : 07-May-2010

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2007(Supp.)Bom.C.R.925

... instruments. The decision in Emperor v. Sibnath Banerjee and Ors. : AIR 1943 FC 75, relied upon by Shri Jethmalani is not an authority for the proposition that the courts are bound by such statements made in the House in response to queries by members. The decision merely holds that such answers were 'admissible under Sections 17, 18 and 20 of the Indian Evidence Act ... production sharing agreements (PSA's)85. One authentic source has been the United Nations. In a document titled 'Alternative Arrangements for Petroleum Development: A Guide for Government Policy-makers and Negotiators'57 published by the United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations it has been stated:almost all forms of agreements between Governments of host countries and foreign oil companies increasingly reflect ... conclusions:(a) GSMA/GSPA was hurriedly framed which reflects mala fides on the part of RIL.(b) There is no fraud on the part of RIL in terms of Section 17 of the Contract Act as alleged by RNRL.(c) The dispute in the present case is about conditions of supply (rate, quantity, tenure etc.) and the non- compliance of the GSMA with ... been filed as aforesaid, or in the case of a company not having a memorandum, to every copy so issued of the instrument constituting or defining the constitution of the company.(5) If default is made in complying with Sub-section (4), the company, and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with fine which may extend ...

Aug 01 2008

Subodh S. Salaskar Vs. Jayprakash M. Shah and Anr.

  • Decided on : 01-Aug-2008

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2008SC3086; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)481; 2008(6)BomCR139; [2008]145CompCas121(SC); (2008)4CompLJ278(SC); 2008CriLJ3953; (2009)1GLR484; JT2008(8)SC637; 2008(11)SCALE42; ].2008AIRSCW5176; AIR2008SC3086; 2008CrLJ3952; 2008LabIC1772; 2008(11)SCALE42; 2008(5)LH(SC)3167

... stipulated period and the present complaint has been filed within the prescribed period as provided under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (as amended) and, therefore, the Accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 and Section 142 of the N.I. Act 1881 (as amended) and Section 420 of the I.P.C.18. I say that the Accused has drawn ... stipulated period as provided under Section 138(c) of the N.I. Act, 1988, therefore, the Accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 138 read with Section 141 and Section 142 of the N.I. Act 1881 (as amended) and Section 420 of the I.P.C.18. The cause of action of filing the said complaint was stated in the following terms:17. I say that ... .B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Whether the proviso appended to Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') inserted by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002, is retrospective in operation is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.10.2007 passed by the High Court of ... impugned order, the High Court has quashed the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act') and Section 420 of the Penal Code, on the sole ground that the complaint was filed two days after the expiry of limitation. In the present case, notice was sent under Section 138 of the Act on 4-1-1997, which was served on the ...

May 08 2008

Aneeta Hada Vs. Godfather Travels and Tours Pvt. Ltd.

  • Decided on : 08-May-2008

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2008(3)ALLMR(SC)881; 2008(3)CTC840; 2008(8)SCALE25; [2008]85SCL56(SC)

... respondent company had business transactions. Appellant on behalf of the company issued a cheque dated 17.1.2001 for a sum of Rs.5,10,000/- in favour of respondent which was dishonoured. Respondent filed a complaint petition against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The Company which is a juristic person was not arrayed as an ... filed a complaint petition against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ('the Act' for short). The Company which is a juristic person was not arrayed as an accused. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence against her. Respondent had not even served any notice upon the Company in terms of Section 138 of the Act. It served a notice only on ... it is held that "as per Section 138 of the Act the drawer of a dishonoured cheque only is liable for punishment". He also cited K. Seetharam Reddy v. K. Radhika Rani, (2002) 112 Comp Cas 204 (AP) in support of his arguments. It is held in the said decision that "Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, leaves no doubt that the person ... Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, leaves no doubt that the person who has drawn the cheque on his account is alone liable in the event the cheque drawn by him is dishonoured". In the light of the above dictum also, I find that neither first accused- society nor petitioner, as secretary of the society can be proceeded against for offence under Section ...

Sep 06 2000

Narsingh Das Tapadia Vs. Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr.

  • Decided on : 06-Sep-2000

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2000SC2946; 2000(2)ALD(Cri)727; 2001ALLMR(Cri)561(SC); 2000(6)ALT1(SC); [2000]102CompCas146(SC); 2000(4)CTC55; JT2000(10)SC141; 2000(3)KLT605(SC); 2000MPLJ531(SC); 2000(

... . Leave granted.2. On proof of charge, the respondent was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months His appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court ... 6.10.1994 due to 'insufficient funds'. The appellant demanded the accused to repay the amount vide his telegrams sent on 7.10.1994 and 17.10.1994. A notice was also issued to the respondent on 19.10.1994 demanding to repay the amount. Despite receipt of the notice on ... the accused did not repay the amount inspite of receipt of notice from the complainant and hence the accused is liable for punishment under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.4. As noticed earlier, the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed on 19th April, 1997. The High Court found that as the ... it. However, when re-filed, the Court took the cognizance on 17.11.1994. The High Court held that the original complaint having been filed on 8.11.1994 was pre-mature and liable to be dismissed.Section 142 of the Act provides:Cognizance of offences.--Notwithstanding-anything contained in the CrPC, 1973 ... the meaning of Section 142 of the Act. The High Court appears to have committed not only mistake of law but a mistake of fact as well. No cognizance was taken on 8.11.1994, but the Magistrate is shown to have applied his mind and taken cognizance only on 17.11.1994 ...

Apr 01 1974

California Bankers Assn. v. Shultz

  • Decided on : 01-Apr-1974

Court : US Supreme Court

... law." This regulation became effective January 17, 1973. 37 Fed.Reg. 23114 (197); 38 Fed.Reg. 2174 (1973). [ Footnote 9 ] "Monetary instrument" is defined by 203(1) of the Act as "coin and currency of the United States, and in addition, such foreign coin and currencies, and such types of travelers' checks, bearer negotiable instruments, bearer investment securities, bearer securities, ... 's regulation requiring the reporting of domestic currency transactions only by the banks or financial institutions which are parties thereto violates a specific requirement of the Act. Section 222 of the Act, 31 U.S.C. 1082, provides in pertinent part: "The report of any transaction required to be reported under this chapter shall be signed or ... Shapiro, supra, it could have required that each individual engaging in the sending of negotiable instruments through the channels of commerce maintain a record of such action; the bank plaintiffs concede as much. [ Footnote 20 ] The bank plaintiffs contend, however, that the Act does not have as its primary purpose regulation of the banks themselves, and therefore ... fact that some may use negotiable instruments for illegal purposes cannot justify the Government's running roughshod over the First Amendment rights of the hundreds of lawful yet controversial organizations like the ACLU. Congress may well have been correct in concluding that law enforcement would be facilitated by the dragnet requirements of this Act. Those who wrote our Constitution, ...

Jun 28 1984

Securities Indus. Assn. v. FRS

  • Decided on : 28-Jun-1984

Court : US Supreme Court

... and "bonds" and "debentures," on the other, into a single class. Section 16's reference to "securities and stock" establishes that the Glass-Steagall Act distinguishes two classes -- "securities," which includes only (though not necessarily all) debt instruments, such as bonds and debentures; and "stock," which includes only equity instruments. The Board's interpretation of "notes" accordingly need assimilate the term ... and what constitutes commercial banking. For example, petitioners have suggested no way to distinguish the "discounting and negotiating" of "promissory notes," permitted by the National Bank Act, from the "purchasing" of "notes," prohibited by 16 and 21 of the Glass-Steagall Act, a distinction that their position requires them to make. It is hard to imagine how that distinction ... is indissoluble. [ Footnote 2/9 ] Indeed, the Board observed that commercial banks have long purchased commercial paper for their own accounts. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 74a, n. 17. See also A. Greef, The Commercial Paper House in the United States 95-96 (1938); R. Foulke, The Commercial Paper Market 65-74 (1931). No one in this ... Act prohibits a covered bank [ Footnote 2/2 ] from selling third-party commercial paper, the threshold issue is whether commercial paper is a "security" within the meaning of those two sections. See Investment Company Institute v. Camp, supra, at 401 U. S. 634 -635. If it is not, then commercial paper, which is a debt, rather than an equity instrument ...

Jul 11 2001

Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee

  • Decided on : 11-Jul-2001

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2001SC3897; 2001(2)ALD(Cri)234; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1497(SC); II(2001)BC773(SC); 2001(49)BLJR1955; [2001]106CompCas574(SC); (2001)3CompLJ313(SC); 2001CriLJ4647; 2001(3)Crimes2; (2001)6SCC16

... , J.1. The appellant was found guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by the Special Court set up under the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (referred to as, the 'Act'). The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year and a fine for a sum of ... on the Andhra Bank in favour of the Standard Chartered Bank (briefly referred to as 'the Bank') for the sums of Rs.27 Crores, Rs.14.5 Crores, Rs.17 Crores, and Rs.19,95,75,000/- respectively. According to the Bank the cheques were issued for payment of loss suffered by the Bank arising out of transactions in ... preliminary stages of the Trial before the Special Court except to note the charges were framed on 26th August 1992 by the Special Court against the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.20. That the four cheques were executed by the appellant in favour of the Standard Chartered Bank (hereafter referred to as the Bank), has not been denied ... case, namely, under Section 118 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 118 provides, inter-alia, that until the contrary is proved it shall be presumed that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. The presumption which arises under Section 138 provides ...

Jul 04 2006

M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Anr.

  • Decided on : 04-Jul-2006

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC3366; III(2006)BC433; [2006]132CompCas450(SC); (2006)6CompLJ39(SC); 2006CriLJ4607; 2006(3)CTC730; JT2006(6)SC72; 2006(3)KLT404(SC); 2006(5)MhLj676; 2006MPLJ97(SC);

... complaint petition was filed on 19.11.1992 by the Second Respondent herein against the Appellant purported to be for commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short 'the Act'), on the following allegations:2. The Second Respondent had been carrying on business of stock and share brokers under the name and style of ' ... that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist.17. Applying the said definitions of 'proved' or 'disproved' to principle behind Section 118(a) of the Act, the Court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, ... provisions of Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act which read as under:118. Presumptions as to negotiable instruments - Until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: (a) of consideration - that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that every such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or ... behind Section 118(a) of the Act, the Court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either believes that the consideration does not exist or considers the non-existence of the consideration so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //