CHEQUE BOUNCE (U/S 138 NIA)

CHECK THIS LINK FOR UPDATES:

Daily updates civil law 

1️⃣ Kaveri Plastics v. Mahdoom Bawa Bahrudeen Noorul

Citation: 2025 INSC 1133, decided 19 Sept 2025 – Supreme Court of India Sci API+1

• The Court held that the demand in the statutory notice must strictly match the cheque amount. If the notice demands an inflated figure (e.g. adding interest/penalties) instead of the cheque amount, the notice is invalid and the S.138 prosecution fails.
  
  

• This is because S.138 is a penal provision and must be strictly construed; the statutory requirements cannot be “substantially” but must be exactly complied with.
  
  

• Practically: when drafting a notice, demand only the cheque amount under S.138; you may separately reserve civil remedies for interest, damages, etc.
  
  

Full judgment:
Supreme Court PDF (official) Sci API

2️⃣ Dhanasingh Prabhu v. Chandrasekar & Anr

Citation: 2025 INSC 831; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1419, decided 14 Jul 2025 – Supreme Court of India Sci API+2Section1+2

• The Court clarified that a complaint under S.138/141 NI Act is maintainable even if the partnership firm itself is not arraigned as an accused, so long as the partners in charge and responsible for business are impleaded and the necessary averments exist.
  
  

• It treats such omission as a curable defect where the real parties in control are before the court; it departs from the earlier very rigid understanding that the firm is a “must” accused in all cases.
  
  

• For drafting: focus on specific role-averments against partners; do not assume the case is dead merely because the firm was not named, especially if limitation would bar refiling.
  
  

Full judgment:
Supreme Court PDF (official) Sci API

3️⃣ Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr

Citation: 2025 INSC 1158; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 952, decided 25 Sept 2025 – Supreme Court of India CaseMine+3Supreme Court Observer+3Law Ministry+3

• SC set aside a High Court acquittal and restored conviction under S.138, emphasizing that once execution of the cheque is admitted, presumptions under Ss.118 & 139 NI Act strongly favour the complainant.
  
  

• Failure to reply to the statutory notice, and a vague plea that the cheque was for a “cash loan” or in violation of Income-tax provisions (S.269SS/269ST), does not by itself rebut the presumption or make the debt unenforceable.
  
  

• The judgment also issues systemic guidelines for S.138 cases: encouraging early payment/compounding, using summary procedures, and administrative steps to reduce pendency. These directions are now being circulated to all courts.
  
  

• Practically: don’t treat “cash loan above ₹20,000/₹2 lakh” as a silver-bullet defence; focus on a credible factual rebuttal backed by evidence.
  
  

Full judgment (text PDF):
SCObserver – full judgment PDF Supreme Court Observer

4️⃣ Jai Balaji Industries Ltd. & Ors v. M/s HEG Ltd.

Citation: 2025 INSC 1362; 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1149, decided 28 Nov 2025 – Supreme Court of India Supreme Court Observer+2Legal Bites+2

• The Court finally settles post-2015 confusion on territorial jurisdiction in S.138 cases: for an “account payee” cheque, the complaint must be filed where the payee’s “home branch” (where their account is maintained) is located.
  
  

• Even if the cheque is deposited at another branch or under CTS, for jurisdictional purposes it is treated as presented at the payee’s home branch.
  
  

• The Court also applies S.142(2) & 142A NI Act and orders transfer of pending cases consistent with this principle.
  
  

• For practice: when filing or challenging jurisdiction, identify the payee’s account-maintaining branch; that court is ordinarily the correct forum.
  
  

Full judgment (with full text on page):
SCObserver – case & judgment Supreme Court Observer

5️⃣ Sri Dattatraya v. Sharanappa

Citation: 2024 INSC 586; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1899, decided 7 Aug 2024 – Supreme Court of India Verdictum+2Verdictum+2

• SC refused to interfere with concurrent acquittals in a cheque-bounce case and took the opportunity to re-state the law on presumptions and burden of proof under Ss.118 & 139 NI Act.
  
  

• Once the cheque and signature are admitted, the presumption of legally enforceable debt arises, but the accused can rebut it on preponderance of probabilities – even through cross-examination and circumstances, not only by leading defence evidence.
  
  

• However, appellate courts should be slow to overturn acquittals where the trial and first appellate courts have carefully appreciated evidence and found the defence reasonably probable.
  
  

• Takeaway: as complainant’s counsel, build a coherent story and documents, not just the cheque; as defence, focus on plausible alternative narrative, not bare denial.
  
  

Full judgment (article with judgment link):
Verdictum – summary + “Click to read/download judgment” Verdictum

6️⃣ M/s Rajco Steel Enterprises v. Kavita Saraff

Citation: 2024 INSC 288; [2024] 161 Taxmann.com 561 (SC), decided 9 Apr 2024 – Supreme Court of India CaseMine+2Studocu+2

• The complainant alleged liability on the basis of several cheques, but the courts below found that the underlying transaction wasn’t proved, and the cheques appeared to be security cheques related to a different arrangement.
  
  

• SC declined to upset concurrent acquittals, reiterating that presumptions under S.139 are rebuttable, and once the accused raises a credible defence, the complainant must establish the actual nature of the liability.
  
  

• The Court stresses that in S.138 matters it will not re-appreciate evidence like a third trial court unless findings are perverse.
  
  

• Practice point: in complex credit/security-cheque situations, always marshal account statements, invoices, and contemporaneous writings; bare reliance on cheque + notice is risky.
  
  

Full judgment (complete text):
Casemine – full judgment view CaseMine

Part B – Important civil-law judgments (property, limitation, CPC, arbitration)

7️⃣ The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Anr

Citation: 2025 INSC 490; Civil Appeal No. 5200 of 2025, decided 16 Apr 2025 – Supreme Court of India B S Sridhar & Co., Chartered Accountants+3Supreme Court Observer+3Law Web+3

• Plaintiffs claiming under an agreement to sell sued a charitable institution (true owner) for injunction, alleging they had paid ₹75 lakh in cash. SC held that an agreement to sell does not create any interest in immovable property (S.54 TPA) and Section 53-A protection is only a shield against the transferor, not third parties with independent title.
  
  

• The plaint was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) & (d) CPC for disclosing no enforceable right against the institution and being barred by law.
  
  

• Crucially, the Court directed that where parties plead cash transactions of ₹2 lakh or more, courts must intimate the Income-tax Department to ensure compliance with S.269ST/271DA IT Act – this has triggered circulars in many states.
  
  

• Practice use: in property suits based on unregistered agreements, always check who holds title/possession and whether the claim is really maintainable; be cautious with large “all-cash” narratives.
  
  

Full judgment (PDF):
SCObserver – judgment PDF mirror Supreme Court Observer

8️⃣ Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors

Citation: 2025 INSC 485, decided 15 Apr 2025 – Supreme Court of India Sci API

• Suit: plaintiff-son sought a declaration that his father’s registered will and codicil were null and void, plus consequential injunctions. The plaint itself admitted knowledge of the will/codicil in Nov 2014, but the suit was filed on 21 Nov 2017.
  
  

• SC held that the primary relief was a declaration and thus governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act – three years from when the “right to sue first accrues”. On the plaint’s own averments, the suit was ex-facie time-barred.
  
  

• The Court restored the trial court’s order rejecting the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, and clarified that limitation is not always a “mixed question”; if the bar is clear from the plaint, courts must terminate such suits at the threshold.
  
  

• Practice point: when drafting declaratory suits (particularly challenging wills, deeds, codicils), plead the exact accrual of right to sue and ensure filing within 3 years; otherwise expect an O7R11(d) attack.
  
  

Full judgment (official PDF):
Supreme Court PDF Sci API

9️⃣ P. Kumarakurubaran v. P. Narayanan & Ors

Citation: 2025 INSC 598; Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2025, decided 29 Apr 2025 – Supreme Court of India Indian Kanoon

• Trial court had refused an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC in a title-and-injunction suit; High Court, in revision, reversed that and rejected the plaint as time-barred.
  
  

• SC examined the chain of assignments, sale deeds, settlement deed, GPA etc., and emphasized that for O7R11(d), the court must look strictly at plaint averments read with relied-on documents – not at disputed defence facts.
  
  

• The Court found that limitation and title issues required full trial, not rejection at the threshold, and restored the plaint.
  
  

• Use: this pairs with RBANMS/Nikhila – together they show the two ends of O7R11(d): reject when the bar is obvious on the plaint; otherwise, do not short-circuit suits merely because limitation is arguable.
  
  

Full text with download option:
Indian Kanoon – full judgment (PDF available) Indian Kanoon

🔟 Rajeev Gupta & Ors v. Prashant Garg & Ors

Citation: 2025 INSC 552; Civil Appeal No. 11061 of 2024, decided 23 Apr 2025 – Supreme Court of India Sci API+1

• A classic family property dispute involving an old will, family settlement, multiple suits, sale deeds and compromise decrees. The plaintiffs sought cancellation of sale deeds and recovery of possession based on title.
  
  

• SC analysed Article 65 Limitation Act, holding that where the suit is essentially based on title (with cancellation only incidental), the longer 12-year limitation applies, not the shorter 3-year period for setting aside documents.
  
  

• It also re-stated law on proof of wills (S.68 Evidence Act) and the limited presumption for old registered documents under U.P.-specific S.90A Evidence Act, refusing to blindly presume due execution.
  
  

• Takeaway: in property suits, frame reliefs so that the real basis (title vs cancellation) is clear; limitation and burden of proof will flow from that characterization.
  
  

Full judgment (official PDF):
Supreme Court PDF Sci API

1️⃣1️⃣ My Preferred Transformation & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 INSC 56; [2025] 1 SCR 729, decided 10 Jan 2025 – Supreme Court of India Verdictum+2Supreme Court Cases+2

• Arbitration case, but crucial for civil/commercial practitioners: SC held that limitation for S.34 petitions (to set aside arbitral awards) is to be computed strictly under S.34(3) of the Arbitration Act, read with S.4 & S.12 Limitation Act.
  
  

• It reaffirmed that there is no “wholesale exclusion” of Ss.4–24 Limitation Act, but within the statutory scheme the courts have very limited room to extend time; a time-barred S.34 petition cannot be revived on equitable grounds.
  
  

• The Court carefully explained how to compute limitation when the last day is a court holiday (S.4) and what time is excludable under S.12.
  
  

• Practice takeaway: treat S.34(3) as a hard deadline with only narrow statutory leeway; diarise limitation from the date of receipt of the signed award and use certified copy timelines accurately.
  
  

Full judgment (watermarked PDF):
Verdictum – judgment PDF Verdictum

1️⃣2️⃣ Annamalai v. Vasanthi & Ors

Citation: 2025 INSC 1267; Civil Appeal Nos. 26848–26849 of 2018, decided 29 Oct 2025 – Supreme Court of India Sci API

• The case arises out of two inter-linked civil suits between family members concerning property rights, prior decrees and compromise arrangements. SC had to reconcile multiple rounds of litigation, sales and possession claims.
  
  

• The judgment revisits lis pendens (S.52 TPA) and the effect of transfers made during the pendency of suits, and clarifies how subsequent suits and decrees inter-act with earlier compromise decrees and possession.
  
  

• For practitioners, its real value lies in the Court’s approach to harmonising multiple decrees and long-running family disputes, emphasizing that final relief must reflect the real equities and chain of title, not just technical pleadings.
  
  

• In multi-suit property conflicts, map every proceeding chronologically (suits, decrees, compromises, sale deeds); Annamalai shows how SC is likely to unpack such litigation.
  
  

Full judgment (official PDF):
Supreme Court PDF Sci API