Skip to content


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

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 ...

Jan 11 2010

Mandvi Co-op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Nimesh B. Thakore

  • Decided on : 11-Jan-2010

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2010(1)BomCR614; JT2010(1)SC259; 2010(I)OLR(SC)306; 2010(1)SCALE188; (2010)3SCC83; [2010]98SCL139(SC); 2010(1)LC454(SC)

... by making amendments in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Negotiable Instruments Act was amended first by the Banking Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 and a second time by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2002. The first amendment inserted Chapter XVII in the Act, comprising Sections 138 to 143. Section 138 made, for ... Section 147 makes the offences punishable under the Act, compoundable.17. It is not difficult to see that Sections 142 to 147 lay down a kind of a special code for the trial of offences under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Sections 143 to 147 were inserted in the Act by the Negotiable Instruments (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act ... Act.2. A large number of cases are reported to be pending under Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in various courts in the country. Keeping in view the large number of complaints under the said Act pending in various courts, a Working Group was constituted to review Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ... Sections 138 to 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in various courts in the country. Keeping in view the large number of complaints under the said Act pending in various courts, a Working Group was constituted to review Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and make recommendations as to what changes were needed to effectively achieve the purpose of that section ...

Sep 17 2001

Punjab and Sindh Bank Vs. Vinkar Sahakari Bank Ltd. and ors.

  • Decided on : 17-Sep-2001

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2001VIIAD(SC)537; AIR2001SC3641; 2001(4)ALLMR(SC)474; 2002(1)ALT(Cri)55; [2001]107CompCas208(SC); (2001)4CompLJ188(SC); 2002CriLJ93; JT2001(8)SC22; 2001MPLJ580(SC); RLW2001

... The holder thereof (Punjab and Sindh Bank) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'the Act'). The drawer bank and its officials have been arraigned as accused in the complaint. But a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay quashed the complaint mainly on the premise that the instrument (described as the 'pay order') is not a cheque. ... observation was made in the wake of the contention that the collecting bank could claim protection under Section 131 of the Act. The said decision of the Bombay High Court cannot hold good because the Negotiable Instruments Act was amended by incorporating Section 131A in the said Act.17.That apart, learned single Judge while relying on the decisions of the House of Lords in Capital ... law and then made the following observations:'However that might be, there is no denying that a demand draft is nothing more or less than a negotiable instrument governed by the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act; and on the face of it, the obligations it creates are nothing more than ordinary debts.'16.We are of the opinion that the High Courts ... due course.' It is evident that the section renders such draft a negotiable instrument.10.Section 131A, which was introduced in the statute by Act 33 of 1947, makes all the provisions for crossing of cheques applicable to the drafts also. That section says: 'The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to any draft, as defined in section 85A, as if the draft were a ...

May 28 1954

Seth Jagjivan Mavji Vithlani Vs. Ranchhoddas Meghji

  • Decided on : 28-May-1954

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1954SC554; (1955)57BOMLR17; [1955]1SCR503

... .R. 1009)). But the law was altered in England by section 17(2) of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882, which enacted that an acceptance was invalid, unless it was written on the bill and signed by the drawee. Section 7 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, following the English law, provides that the drawee becomes an ... Court is based, that the drawee of a negotiable instrument is not liable on it to the payee, unless he has accepted it. On the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, no other conclusion is possible. Chapter III of that Act defines the obligations of parties to negotiable instruments. Section 32 provides that, 'In the absence of ... and, therefore, the person who is entitled to receive the payment under section 78 of the Act is the person, who is entitled to present it for acceptance. Under section 78, the payment must be to the holder of the instrument; and if Vrajlal had no authority to receive the amount on ... to the holder on demand.' 6. Under this section, the liability of the drawee arises only when he accepts the bill. There is no provision in the Act that the drawee is as such liable on the instrument, the only exception being under section 31 in the case of a drawee of ... to fasten a liability on the defendants on the hundi. What is requisite for fixing the drawees with liability under section 32 is the acceptance by them of the instrument and not an acknowledgment of liability. As the law prescribes no particular form for acceptance, there should be no ...

Jan 28 2000

G. Sagar Suri & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

  • Decided on : 28-Jan-2000

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2000SC754; 2000(1)ALD(Cri)362; 2000(1)ALT(Cri)168; [2000]100CompCas613(SC); 2000CriLJ824; 2000(2)CTC107; JT2000(1)SC360; 2000(1)SCALE271; (2000)2SCC636; [2000]1SCR417

... payment. The Finance Company sent a notice to the accused on July 17, 1997 for repayment of the amount within 15 days and in spite of that no payment was made. It was, thus, alleged that the accused committed an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While describing the accused 2 to 8 as Managing Director and Directors ... issued, which again were dishonoured resulting in filing of complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. None of the respondents has been able to explain as to why offences under Sections 406/420, I.P.C. were not added in the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and why resort was had to filing of a separate First Information Report ... make all the accused 2 to 8 liable for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. After examining the complainant, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate was of the opinion that there was prima facie case made out against the accused persons for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and by his order dated August 27, 1997 ordered summoning ... appellants of criminal prosecution. A criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is already pending against the appellants and other accused. They would suffer the consequences if offence under Section 138 is proved against them. In any case there is no occasion for the complainant to prosecute the appellants under Sections 406/420, I.P.C. and in his ...

Mar 14 2001

Ashok Yeshwant Badave Vs. Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar and Anr.

  • Decided on : 14-Mar-2001

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2001SC1315; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)668; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1028(SC); 2001(2)ALT(Cri)11; 2001CriLJ1674; JT2001(3)SC508; 2001(2)KLT28(SC); 2001(2)SCALE472; (2001)3SCC726; [2001]2SCR426

... the appellant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').3. Surendra Madhavrao Nighojkar - respondent No. 1 filed a petition of complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satara on 2.9.1996 for prosecution of the appellant under Section 138 of the Act besides Section 420 of the Penal Code which ... 1954 was the 25th February, 1954 if he had presented it on that date and it had been honoured.'17. From a bare perusal of Sections 5 & 6 of the Act it would appear that bill of exchange is a negotiable instrument in writing containing an instruction to a third party to pay a stated sum of money at a ... sections, namely, Sections 138 to 142 which are altogether different from old Sections 138 and 139. The object of bringing Section 138 by the aforesaid amending Act on the Statute appears to be to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business of negotiable instruments. Despite civil remedy, Section 138 intends to prevent dishonesty on the part of the drawer of negotiable instruments ... provision became redundant and consequently by Section 16 of the Notaries Act, 1952, Sections 138 and 139 were repealed and thereby Chapter XVII was abolished w.e.f. 14th February, 1956. However, Chapter XVII has been re-introduced in the Act by Section 4 of the Banking, Public Financial Institutions and Negotiable Instruments Laws (Amendment) Act, 1988 (Act 66 of 1988) with effect from ...

May 02 2001

M.N. Damani Vs. S.K. Sinha and Ors.

  • Decided on : 02-May-2001

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2001SC2037; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)858; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1488(SC); 2001(2)ALT(Cri)63; 2001CriLJ2571; 2001(2)Crimes271(SC); JT2001(Suppl1)SC375; 2001(3)SCALE654; (2001)5SCC156; [200

... locked by our Accountant while leaving the office for the day.'3. The Magistrate found these allegations as false and convicted the respondents (accrued) for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 17.12.1998. An appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the IV Additional Sessions Court, Bangalore on 30.7.1999. According to the appellant the respondents ... the case after a trial. The Magistrate had convicted the respondents for the offences under Sections 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the appeal filed by the respondents was also dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. Assuming that the imputations made could be covered by exception 9 of Section 499 IPC, several questions still remain to be examined -whether such imputations were made in ... facts of that case and the discussions made in paras 6 and 8 of the said judgment. In that case the complaint was filed for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 407 read with Sections 34 and 120-B of the Penal Code. That was a case where the property was trust property and one of the trustees was member of ... relying g on para 7 of the judgment in Madhavrao Jiwaji Rao Scindia and another vs. Sambhajirao Chandrojicao Angre and other. : 1988CriLJ853 : 1988CriLJ853 exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 quashed the proceedings. The learned judge Section 482 quashed the proceedings. The learned Judge did not bestow his attention to the facts of that case and the discussions made in paras 6 and ...

Sep 16 2003

The Assistant Commissioner, Assessment-II, Bangalore and Ors. Vs. Vell ...

  • Decided on : 16-Sep-2003

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2004SC86; (2004)1CompLJ21(SC); 2004CriLJ1221; (2003)184CTR(SC)193; 2003(157)ELT369(SC); [2003]263ITR550(SC); JT2003(Suppl2)SC99; 2003(7)SCALE530; (2003)11SCC405; [2003]4

... be made to Section 35H Wealth Tax Act, Section 14A Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, Section 141 Negotiable Instruments Act, Section 34 Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Section 10 Essential Commodities Act, Section 6 Indian Merchandise Act, Section 38 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Section 17 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Section 276C of the Act uses the word 'willfully' and Section 277 uses the ... Section 277 contains a similar provision and makes false verification an offence which is punishable with sentence and fine. Section 2(31) of the Act defines a 'person' and it includes a company and this provision is exactly similar to Section 3(42) General Clauses Act. Section 278B of the Act is important and it reads as under :'278B. (1) Where an offence under this Act ... Sections 276C, 277 and 278 read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The respondents challenged the prosecution by a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and urged the following grounds in support:(1) That the sanction of the Commissioner of Income Tax granted under Section 279 of the Act ... the offence except with the previous sanction of the competent authority provided in the Statute like Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act or Section 20 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. The basic idea behind such provision is to save persons from frivolous or malicious prosecutions ...

Nov 01 2002

C. Antony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair

  • Decided on : 01-Nov-2002

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2003SC182; 2003(1)ALT(Cri)218; IV(2006)BC295(SC); [2002]112CompCas611(SC); 2003CriLJ411; RLW2003(2)SC194; (2003)1SCC1; 2003(1)LC36(SC); 2002(5)WLN789

... appeal by special leave is preferred against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam dated 17.11.1995 made in Criminal Appeal No. 438/93 whereby the appellant herein was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act). and was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 37,500/- and in default to ... bank, was dishonoured with an endorsement 'Payment stopped by the drawer'. The respondent after issuing the required statutory notice, filed a complaint against the appellant for offence under Section 138 of the Act, as stated above. The plea of the appellant was that no cheque was issued to the respondent nor any amount was borrowed from him. He stated that the cheque ... . The High Court also drew an adverse inference against the appellant for non examining himself. On the above basis, it found the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him, as stated above.5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the evidence as well as the judgments ...

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 ...

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