Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 : Who can Maintain a Complaint for Cheque Dishonour

Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 : Who can Maintain a Complaint for Cheque Dishonour 

In the case of Milind Shripad Chandurkar v. Kalim M. Khan [2011] GCtR 6603 (SC) dealing with a case related to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 it was held that  Section 7 of the Act 1881 defines “Payee” as the person named in the instrument, to whom or to whose order the money is by the instrument directed to be paid. Section 8 defines “the holder of the cheque” as any person entitled in his own name to the possession thereof and to receive or recover the amount due thereon from the parties thereto. Section 9 defines “holder in due course” as any person who for consideration became the possessor of a cheque if payable to a bearer or the payee or endorsee thereof.

Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 provides for penalties in case of dishonour of certain cheques for insufficiency of funds in the accounts. However, exception is contained in clause (c). 

It was explained that where the “payee” is a proprietary concern the complaint can be filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern describing himself as the sole proprietor of the “payee”; (ii) the proprietary concern describing itself as the sole proprietary concern represented by its proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the Attorney Holder under the power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor. However, it shall not be permissible for an Attorney Holder to file the complaint in his own name as if he was the complainant. He can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of the principal.

In a case of a nature, where the “payee” is a company or a sole proprietary concern, such issue cannot be adjudicated upon taking any guidance from Section 142 of the NI Act but the case shall be governed by the general law i.e. the Companies Act 1956 or by civil law where an individual carries on business in the name or style other than his own name. In such a situation, he can sue in his own name and not in trading name, though others can sue him in the trading name. So far as Section 142 of NI Act is concerned, a complaint shall be maintainable in the name of the “payee”, proprietary concern itself or in the name of the proprietor of the said concern.

General principles of company law or civil law would apply for maintaining the complaint under Section 138 of the Act 1881 and a person can maintain a complaint provided he is either a “payee” or “holder in due course” of the cheque. 

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Compensation and Recovery Rights

In the case of Kulwant Singh v OICL [2014] GCtR 6602 (SC) the issue of recovery rights in case of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was discussed. Actual controversy was whether merely because driver did not obtained the endorsement to drive the light goods vehicle can insurance company be granted recovery rights. 

Acquittal for Cheque Dishonour

Dealing with a case of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 it was noted in Meera S. Chiplunkar v. Ashalata Rawji Kondkar [2015] GCtR 6600 (Bombay) that complainant pointed out that the accused had taken a false defence that the signature on the cheque was not her.  The accused had indeed made such a claim, and the cheque was referred to an expert for opinion on the identity of the signature.  However, the expert who examined the matter and give his report, was not examined during the trial.    It appears to be a fact   that   had   the   expert   been   examined,   he  would   not   have supported the theory of the accused.  Thus, it does appear that the accused attempted to take a false defence.   That, however, does not mean that, that by itself, would indicate her to be guilty of the offence in question.

Compensation under MV Act, 1988

Compensation under MV Act, 1988

UIIC v. Anil Kumar [2019] GCtR 2062 (Delhi) dealing with a case of compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has explained the point as to whether an insurance company can be granted recovery rights by raising the argument that it was proven that the driving licence produced by the driver was fake.

*Understanding the Ambit of S.29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996*

*Understanding the Ambit of S.29A of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996* 

Citation : C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera [2026] GCtR 172 (SC)*

An application under Section 29A(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator is *maintainable even after the expiry of the time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even after rendering of an arbitral award during that time*. Such an arbitral award is ineffective and unenforceable. But the power of the court to consider extension is not impaired by such an indiscretion of the arbitrator. While considering the application, the Court will examine if there is sufficient cause for extending the mandate, and in the process, it may impose such terms and conditions as the situation demands.

Property and Legal Principles of Ownership of Property

*Property and Legal Principles of Ownership of Property*

Citation : *Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad v. Indra Mohan Sachdev [2026] GCtR 171 (Allahabad)*

It is well settled that merely on the basis of payment of house tax of the disputed property, neither any one acquire its ownership nor can proclaim to be its owner, and *merely on the basis that the person is recorded as owner in the property register of Municipal Corporation, does not become the owner of the disputed property*. Such person has to prove his/her ownership in accordance with law.

Where the defendant appellants died during the pendency of appeal, whose legal heirs were not substituted on record, concluded that since the appeal decided after the death of appellants was a nullity, as such, the decree of the trial court in favour of plaintiff was executable. 

For full text (PDF) Copies of Decisions of Hon'ble Allahabad HC with Synopsis  directly on your Whatsapp Number, Please Join *GCtR's Allahabad Decisions* Group.

*Land Acquisition and Monetary Aspects of Compensation*

*Land Acquisition and Monetary Aspects of Compensation*

*Geetabai Eknath Salunke v. SDO [2026] GCtR 170 (Aurangabad, Bombay)*

The legislature has employed words “redetermination” and “compensation” in Sec. 28-A of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. These words carry specific meaning and purport. The rates in the Foundational Award is treated to be additional evidence to have the compensation redetermined U/Sec. 28-A(1). The Collector has to apply mind to the facts of the case and adjudicate afresh. The word compensation is referable to Sec. 23. The constituent factors of the compensation are enumerated in Sec. 23. *One of vital components is market value of the land prevalent at the date of publication* of the notification U/Sec. 4(1) of the Act.  Appellant were held entitled to receive additional component at the *rate of Rs. 12% per annum*.

Income Tax and Law of Protective Assessment

*Income Tax and Law of Protective Assessment*

In case of Pratibha Singh v. ACIT [2026] GCtR 169 (ITAT, Chandigarh), in context of Income-tax Act, 1961 it is held that protective assessment cannot be invoked merely because an assessee disputes ownership. It arises only when the Assessing Officer himself taxes the same income in alternative hands owing to his own doubt. The case involved investment in life insurance policies.

Legal Updates

 *Legal Updates : 2026*

*Gold and Tariff*: 

In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs, being satisfied that it is necessary and expedient to do so, has made the  amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 36/2001-Customs (N.T.), dated the 3rd August, 2001, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section (ii), vide number S. O. 748 (E), dated the 3rd August, 2001. Due to his, Gold, in any form, in respect of which the benefit of entries at serial number 194 of the Notification No. 45/2025-Customs dated 24.10.2025 is availed is affected. [Refer Gazette Notification dated 27 February 2026]

*Customs Act and imports of “PVC Suspension Resins” from China PR* 

An application has been filed by Chemplast Cuddalore Vinyls Limited, DCM Shriram Limited and DCW Limited before the Designated Authority  under the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act 1975, as amended from time to time  and the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Countervailing Duty on Subsidized Articles and for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 thereof, as amended from time to time  for imposition of countervailing duty investigation concerning imports of “PVC Suspension Resins” originating in or exported from China PR. 

It has been noted that the evidence provided by the applicants prima facie shows injury to the domestic industry caused by the alleged subsidized imports from China. [Refer Gazette Publication dated 26 Feb 2026 and Case No. CVD/02/2025]

*Food Safety and Law*

Draft of  Food Safety and Standards (Packaging)Amendment Regulations, 2026 has been published for comments. This Amendment is likely to amend  Food Safety and Standards (Packaging) Regulations, 2018. This new Amendment defines "“food grade contact material”means any material(s) that are used for manufacturing, processing, handling (including kitchenware, tableware, etc.), packaging, storage and transportation of food contact material should have demonstrated their compliance with specific safety standards under prescribed conditions and shall not endanger human and animal health and result in an unacceptable change in the composition and characteristics of food during its intended use.  [Refer Gazette Notification dated 26 February 2026]

Criminal Law and Factors For Bail

*Criminal Law - NDPS Act, 1985 - Less than Commercial Quantity - Factors for Bail*

In this case, it was pointed out that accused has not made out a case for grant of regular bail at the stage (when charges are yet to be framed). Despite there being no direct recovery of the contraband, the prosecution's case, at this stage, demonstrates the involvement of the accused in facilitating distribution of contraband. Although, no contraband was recovered from the accused, prima facie there seems to be pattern of covert coordination and facilitation in the distribution of the contraband. Accused was in custody for more than 9 months and offence involved less than commercial quantity, however, grant of bail was not found proper. - *Sujit Raghunath Bangera v State of Maharashtra [2026] GCtR 167 (Bombay)*

Cheque - Dishonour, Service of Legal Notice and Acquittal under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Cheque - Dishonour,  Service of Legal Notice and Acquittal under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

In the case of Kids Collection v. Shrishti Collection [2018] GCtR 6597 (Delhi), the complaint for offence under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was dismissed. 

The case highlights the role of notice in cases of cheque - dishonour and how it affects the prosecution. 

Although accused did not denied issuing the cheque and the cheque were dishonoured, Court noted that "on perusal of the evidence led on record, it is evident that the petitioner failed to produce the certified or audited statement of running account of the respondent maintained by the petitioner to evaluate the exact liability towards the petitioner. Furthermore, no particular date was mentioned by the witnesses as to when the cheques in question were handed over by the respondent to the petitioner because the last bill in respect of material supplied was dated 27th April, 2006 and the cheques in question were of much later date of the last bill and as per the statement of Venus Kumar (CW-1), the petitioner firm did not give credit period beyond 45 days. Furthermore, though Venus Kumar claimed himself to be one of the partners of the petitioner's firm, however, no power of attorney in his favour by other partners to depose or prosecute on behalf of the petitioner's firm has been placed on record." 

Another point observed was that the "Legal notice sent to the respondent was received back with the endorsement "unclaimed and returned to sender". Address upon which the legal notice was sent to the respondent was different from the address upon which the respondent was served summons from the court. Moreover, the last bill issued to the respondent by the petitioner also mentions some other address of the respondent. Petitioner did not examine any witness from post office to prove service of legal notice upon the respondent. Thus, there cannot be any presumption of deemed service of legal notice in the present case."

Cheque Dishonour, Privity of Contract and Acquittal under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Cheque Dishonour, Privity of Contract and Acquittal under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

In this case dealing with Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 accused was acquitted in Kanti Lal V. Jain v. Kutiappa Silks [2017] GCtR 6596 (Madras). 

In this case complainant argued that the accused did not deny the execution of the cheques and therefore, the presumption under Sec.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should have been invoked to uphold the conviction and sentence.

It was the specific case of the complainant that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the accused and that the accused had issued the impugned cheques to Mr.Rajkumar Chopda, who, in turn, has discounted the cheques with the complainant. Thus, the complainant is a “holder in due course” and in law, he can maintain a complaint for an offence punishable under Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. On that Court observed that it should have to be seen whether the complainant had proved that the cheques were issued by the accused in discharge of a legally enforceable debt to Mr.Rajkumar Chopda. 

Admittedly, in this case, Mr.Rajkumar Chopda was not examined as witness. The presumption under Sec.139 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be invoked only if the complainant proves beyond  reasonable doubt certain minimum facts. In this case, the accused examined himself as witness and has established that 32 cheques were given to Mr.Rajkumar Chopda in trust and not towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt and that, when Mr.Rajkumar Chopda did not supply the materials, for which, the cheques were issued, the accused had given instructions to their bank for “ stop payment”. The accused also filed a suit in O.S.No.668 of 2005 against Mr.Rajkumar Chopda for mandatory injunction directing him to return the impugned cheques. That apart, Mr.Rajkumar Chopda has issued two indemnity bonds dated 03.12.2004, which were marked as Exs.D.7 and D.8, wherein, he had undertaken to return the cheques, as he was not able to procure the textile goods from North India for supplying to the accused.

Acquitting the accused it was held that in a criminal case, it is not necessary for the accused to disprove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. If the accused is able to satisfy the court by legally acceptable evidence that the case of the prosecution lacks bona fide, the accused will be entitled to benefit of doubt. 

Cheque Dishonour, Sequence of Dates and Acquittal under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Cheque Dishonour, Sequence of Dates and Acquittal under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Dealing with a case of S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, acquitting the accused in Kamla Pyarelal Gupta v. Deepak [2018] GCtR 6589 (Nagpur, Bombay) it was noted that  the complainant has failed to prove that she has advanced Rs.40,000/­   to   the   accused   on   30/11/2002.   On   the   contrary,   she admitted that the accused has given cheque on the same day. If that is so, her evidence cannot be accepted that the accused has given cheque of Rs.40,000/­ on 02/05/2003. It was seen that the cheque given for security was used for repayment of amount by showing that the same was given on 02/05/2003.

Insolvency Proceedings under IBC, 2016 and the Legal Issues Affecting Such Proceedings

Insolvency Proceedings under IBC, 2016 and the Legal Issues Affecting Such Proceedings

After noting that S.391 of the Companies Act, 1956 speaks of a compromise or arrangement between a company and inter alia its creditors if a majority of the creditors representing 3/4th value of the debt, agree to such compromise or arrangement in a meeting of such creditors present and voting, either in person or through proxies; which meeting has to be directed by the Court on an application under sub-section (1) by the Company or any creditor, it was concluded that when scheme is defunct then there is no reason to stall the proceedings for initiation of the CIRP by resorting to the provisions of the IBC, 2016.

Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd v. Amit Chaturvedi [2026] GCtR 161 (SC)

Discharge of Accused in Cases under S.498A of IPC

*Discharge of Accused in Cases under S.498A of IPC*

Upholding the discharge of accused (husband) it was held that it is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498A of IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations and large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. The husband cannot be subjected to prosecution on the basis of general allegations regarding dowry demands. - *Kusum Sawai v. State [2023] GCtR 2529 (Delhi)*

Non Denial of issuance of Cheque and Acquittal under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Non Denial of issuance of Cheque and Acquittal under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

In case of K.P. Gopi v. Shabna C [2011] GCtR 6588 (Kerala), trial court found that the accused is not guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In this case there was no denial of the issuance of the cheque however, in the complaint and in the affidavit filed in lieu of the chief examination, the complainant has stated that he got acquaintance with the accused for several years, but he stated during the cross examination that the accused was introduced to him by one Thottathil Kannan, who took part in the mediation, when the cheque for Rs. 1,59,098/- was dishonoured. 

Interest Liability of Telecom Operators

Interest liability of telecom operators and the effective date discussed in Union of India v. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd [2026] GCtR 150 (SC).

*Property Construction and Liability of Developer*

*Property Construction and Liability of Developer*

When there is delay in construction of housing project which is owned by landowner, it is held that liability has been rightly fastened for delay compensation on the developer as it was responsible for the delay in construction. For the lapse on the part of the developer, the landowners, who are in no way concerned with the construction, cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.

Citation : *Sriganesh Chandrasekaran v. Unishire Homes LLP [2026] GCtR 159 (SC)*

Murder - Trial and Legal Principles Explained by Supreme Court

Murder - Trial and Legal Principles Explained by Supreme Court

*Criminal Law - Section 302 of IPC, 1860 - Punishment for Murder*

*Circumstantial Evidence* - "When the conviction is solely based on circumstantial evidence, there should be no breakage in the chain of circumstances, leading to the culpability of the accused, within all human probability."

*Discovery of Fact* - "Discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place from which it is produced, and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence."

*DNA Testing - Value as Evidence - Role in Criminal Cases* - "The absence of DNA testing does not vitiate the identification when credible and consistent testimonies of witnesses who knew the deceased personally are available on record. It is pertinent to note that the rate of decomposition of body will change drastically in different environments."

*Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25,26, 27* - "It is trite that Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act stipulate that confession made to a Police Officer is not admissible. However, Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 and serves as a proviso to both these sections."

*Section 26 and Section 27 - Interplay of both the Sections* - "Section 27 does not nullify the ban imposed by Section 26 in regard to confessions made by persons in police custody but because there is the added guarantee of truthfulness from the fact discovered the statement whether confessional or not is allowed to be given in evidence but only that portion which distinctly relates to the discovery of the fact."

*Section 27 of IEA, 1872 - Admissibility* - "For evidence under Section 27 to be admissible, the information must emanate from an accused who is in police custody. Basic idea embedded in Section 27 is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events - when a fact is discovered on the strength of information obtained from a prisoner, such discovery serves as a guarantee of the truthfulness of the information supplied. The Court further observed that whether the information is confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, if it results in the discovery of a fact, it becomes reliable information. Significantly, it was held that the mere recovery of an object does not constitute the discovery of fact envisaged in the S.27 of IEA, 1872".

*Role of Motive in Criminal Cases - Effect and Extent* - "In cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive is not an absolute necessity when the chain of circumstances is otherwise complete and points conclusively to the guilt of the accused."

Conviction upheld ; life imprisonment awarded.

Citation : *Neelu @ Nilesh Koshti v. State of MP [2026] GCtR 158 (SC)*

Copy of Judgment : https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2024/60168/60168_2024_15_1501_68630_Judgement_20-Feb-2026.pdf

Cheque Dishonour, Material Alterations and Acquittal under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Cheque Dishonour, Material Alterations and Acquittal under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

In case of J. Jerald Vivera v. David Manoharan [2016] GCtR 6587 (Madras) while dealing with case of S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 accused was acquitted. In this case, cheque was given on the date of borrowing. Defence of the accused was  : cheque not given in favour of complainant ; Material alteration made in cheque ; though the date of debt and date of cheque were same but Signature of accused did not matched with signature on cheque ; a different date was mentioned on back of the cheque. 

Protest against depositing Cheque and Acquittal for Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Protest against depositing Cheque and Acquittal for Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

In case of Jayeshbhai Sejpal v. State of Maharashtra [2008] GCtR 6586 (Bombay), accused had protested before cheque was deposited raising the issue of defective supply by complainant. Acquittal of accused under S.138 of NI Act, 1881 was found valid. Upholding the acquittal, it is held that "it is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere."

Insurance Company's Liability under MV Act

*Effect of cheque dishonour and cancellation of insurance policy on liability for compensation under MV Act, 1988 when notice of cancellation was sent to owner of vehicle/RTO by registered post - Insurance company cannot be exonerated from liability to pay compensation nor there will be any reduction in compensation amount or any waiver from interest liability*

Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sukdi [2026] GCtR 157 (Chhattisgarh)

Cheque Dishonour and Probable Defence for Acquittal under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Cheque Dishonour and Probable Defence for Acquittal under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

In an interesting decision [Hari Kishan v. Ranjeet [2015] GCtR 6584 (Delhi)], acquittal of accused under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was found justified. In this case, the accused had been able to rebut the statutory presumption by raising a probable defence. The accused denied having requested the complainant for a loan of Rs.23,70,000/- in the month of June-July 2008, or that he undertook to pay the same before January 2009. After noting that complainant has not been able to explain why, and in what circumstances he claimed to have given blank signed papers to the accused, conviction of accused was found without merit.  It was held that when the case set up by the holder of the cheque itself was dubious, initial presumption u/s. 118 & 139 of NI Act, 1881 itself comes to an end. 

Source of Amounts , Cheque Dishonour and Acquittal in Cases under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Source of Amounts, Cheque Dishonour and Acquittal in Cases under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

In an interesting decision [ Inderjit Narula v Rohit Dua [2015] GCtR 6583 (Delhi) ], the complainants were not able to establish the source of the amounts, and claimed to have advanced such huge amounts without even taking a receipt. Accused was held entitled to acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is open to the accused to rebut the presumption without leading any evidence of its own, and by placing reliance on the evidence – including the cross-examination, of the complainant’s witnesses.

S.8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

S.8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Acquitting murder accused it is held that "even if there is no formal arrest made, if a person is within the ken of surveillance of the police, during which his movements are restricted, then it can be regarded as custodial surveillance. The evidence under S.8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in a conviction. "

Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh [2026] GCtR 151 (SC)

Can Compensation lead to Reduction in Sentence in Crimes : Supreme Court Clarifies the Doubt

Can Compensation lead to Reduction in Sentence in Crimes : Supreme Court Clarifies the Doubt

"The misplaced understanding of various courts in treating compensation as a substitute of sentence is both a matter of concern and a practice which should be condemned. Compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature, and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment."

Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu [2026] GCtR 150 (SC)

Service Law : Effect of Validity of Degrees Explained by Supreme Court

Service Law : Effect of Validity of Degrees Explained by Supreme Court

In a case where the degree was obtained by librarian from a University and the Act under which said university was set up was declared invalid later on, it was held that the candidates who had obtained degrees cannot be deprived of the job under certain situations when the university was not bogus.

Priyanka Kumari v. State of Bihar [2026] GCtR 149 (SC)

Suicide and Liability under Criminal Law : Supreme Court Fixes the Liability

Suicide and Liability under Criminal Law : Supreme Court Fixes the Liability 

Dealing with a case of S.107 of IPC and S.306 of IPC, it is held at page 59 that "suicide in a suicide pact is conditional upon mutual participation of the other. In other words, if not for the active participation of both the parties, the act would not occur. The law treats such conduct as abetment because the State has a fundamental interest in preserving life." 

Gudipalli Siddhartha Reddy v. State [2026] GCtR 148 (SC)

200 + Landmark Judgments on Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

*200+ Landmark Judgments on Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881*

200 Full text (PDF) Copies of Judgments will be shared on the e-mail address.

Synopsis of Judgments also available, on request.

List of 25 Decisions : 

1. P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt Ltd [2021] GCtR 475 (SC)
2. Devender Kumar v. Khem Chand [2015] GCtR 6581 (Delhi)]

3. [Ghanshyam D. Katira v. Sanjay J. Ganatra [2015] GCtR 6582 (Bombay)], 

4.  Inderjit Narula v Rohit Dua [2015] GCtR 6583 (Delhi) .
5. Dilip Bhanu Naik v. Deendayal Multipurpose [2026] GCtR 138 (Goa, Bombay) 
6.  [K. Yashoda v. K. Venkatesh [2014] GCtR 6580 (Dharwad, Karnataka)], 
7. Goutam Shoe Store v. Relaxo Footwear Ltd [2019] GCtR 6566 (Delhi)
8. Mohit Bansal v. MGI Developers and Promoters [2026] GCtR 38 (SC)
9. Manoj Abhimanyu Patil v. Mansi Labour Suppliers [2025] GCtR 380 (Aurangabad, Bombay)
10. Parth v. State of Maharashtra [2025] GCtR 1864 (Aurangabad, Bombay) 
11. Dnyanoba v. Munja [2025] GCtR 1783 (Aurangabad, Bombay).
12. T.A.N. Moorthy v. C.K. Narayan [2025] GCtR 15 (Bombay)
13.  Sunav Steel Pvt Ltd v. State of NCTD [2025] GCtR 1722 (Delhi).
14. Satish Kumar v. State NCTD [2025] GCtR 1721 (Delhi).
15.  Ankush Arora v. Rachna Sarees [2024] GCtR 3465 (Delhi).
16.  Ashoke Mal Bafna v. Upper India Steel Mfg & Engg Co. Ltd [2017] GCtR 6500 (SC).
17. Ashutosh Ashok Parasrampuriya v. Gharrkul Industries Pvt Ltd [2021] GCtR 3451 (SC). 
18. Anand Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd v. Vipin Lalchand Mehta [2008] GCtR 6499 (Aurangabad, Bombay)
19.  Samiyappan v. S. Sarmila Banu [2016] GCtR 6495 (Madras).
20.  Amzad Pasha v. H.N. Lakshmana [2010] GCtR 6494 (Karnataka).
21.  Amit Sharma v. Rama Goyal [2023] GCtR 304 (Delhi). 
22.  Manoj Kumar Panchal v. Mahender Kumar Panchal [2025] GCtR 1694 (Delhi).
23. Muskan Enterprises v. State of Punjab [2024] GCtR 3463 (SC).
24. Bandhu Baba Khad Bhandar v. State of NCTD [2025] GCtR 1693 (Delhi).
25.  Ihome and Infrastructure Pvt Ltd v. State GNCTD [2025] GCtR 1692 (Delhi).
26. Hari Kishan v. Ranjeet [2015] GCtR 6584 (Delhi)

To receive the Full list of all 200+ landmark Judgments on NI Act, 1881 directly on e-mail address, please follow 2 steps : 1. Click on "Follow" on right side of this blog to become Follower of Blog. 2. Mention your e-mail address in the "Comments" of this Blog post.

Date of Issuance of Cheque and its Effect on Acquittal in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Date of Issuance of Cheque and its Effect on Acquittal in Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881  

In an interesting case [Ghanshyam D. Katira v. Sanjay J. Ganatra [2015] GCtR 6582 (Bombay)], the defence of the accused in case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is that he had not taken any loan of Rs.1,50,000 from the complainant. 

It was held that when cheque No.440855 had been issued in the year 1998, the possibility of the next cheque – bearing No. 440856 – having been issued in the year 2006 – i.e. after a gap of eight years – is rather remote; and this aspect is capable of rendering the version of the accused, plausible. The accused was acquitted.

The other issue noted was that there is also some confusion as to whether the loan in question was given by the complainant in his capacity as a 'money lender'.  It is not only because the same has been described as a 'friendly loan', but also because the money lenders business is being done by the complainant in the name of 'Harshal Money Lender'.   The cheque has not been issued in favour of 'Harshal Money Lender'. 

HC noted that the version of the complainant about the date, on which a loan was advanced to the accused, and the   date   on   which   the   accused   gave   a   cheque   towards   the purported repayment thereof, cannot be relied upon.   The story put forth by the complainant cannot be accepted as true.

Rebuttal of Presumption and Acquittal for Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of NI Act, 1881

Rebuttal of Presumption and Acquittal for Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of NI Act, 1881 

In an interesting case [Devender Kumar v. Khem Chand [2015] GCtR 6581 (Delhi)], it was held that under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, unless the contrary is proved, the holder of the cheque shall be presumed to have received the cheque in discharge of any debt or liability. Sub-clause (a) of Section 118 of the NI Act, inter-alia, provides that unless the contrary is proved, the drawn up negotiable instrument, if accepted, has to be presumed to be for consideration.

In this case there was successful rebuttal of the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act of any legally enforceable debt and the accused was acquitted. It was held that an accused may not be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. A reverse onus clause requires the accused to raise a probable defence for creating doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability for thwarting the prosecution. The standard of proof for doing so would necessarily be on the basis of “preponderance of probabilities” and not “beyond shadow of any doubt”.

When at the commencement of, or in the course of a summary trial under the NI Act, it would appear to the Magistrate that the nature of the case is such that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding one year may have to be passed or that it is for any reason, undesirable to try the case summarily, the Magistrate would, after hearing the parties, record an order to the effect and thereafter recall any witness who may be examined and proceeded to here or re-hear the case in the manner provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Blank Cheque and Principles of Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of NI Act, 1881

Blank Cheque and Principles of Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour under S.138 of NI Act, 1881

In this case [K. Yashoda v. K. Venkatesh [2014] GCtR 6580 (Dharwad, Karnataka)], complainant was aggrieved. However, the acquittal of accused was found valid. In this case, complainant was having a blank cheque which was issued by accused ; cheque was issued as a security and cheque got dishonoured after which proceedings under S.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were initiated. After looking at the date of loan and the date of cheque, High Court found acquittal of accused justified. It was held that provision under Section 20 of the N.I. Act, 1881 also envisages that the cheque should not be filled up for any excess amount. Therefore, it goes without saying that when the accused disputes the contents of cheque, particularly the amount mentioned in the said cheque as excessive and mis-used by complainant, in that context, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, 1881 cannot be drawn in favour of complainant, because of the simple reason that the liability or debt is disputed by accused and it is admitted by complainant in the course of cross examination that a blank cheque was given and actually she has filled up the contents of said cheque." When the complainant has nowhere stated that a blank cheque has been issued to complainant and thereafter she has filled up the amount for Rs.95,000/- ;  then it is incumbent upon the complainant to show that as on the date of issuance of cheque the amount of Rs.95,000/- was not known to the parties and with an intention to fill up the said cheque, the accused has given the blank cheque so as to enable the complainant to fill up the said cheque, in future, for the exact liability of the accused.

Service Law

*Service Law - Elements and Principles of Promotion - Role of ACR/APAR* - Can an employee be denied promotion when employe has not been provided his ACR/APAR within time ? Explained and discussed and it was held that "natural justice has an expanding content and is not stagnant. It is therefore open to the court to develop new principles of natural justice in appropriate cases" and "whenever there is unfair action on the part of the State or its instrumentality observed by the Court, the same would be considered in violation of the principles of natural justice." - *Susheel Patil v. IRCTC [2026] GCtR 147 (Gujarat)*

Income Tax and TDS - Ambit of Legal Provisions Explained

Income Tax and TDS - Ambit of Legal Provisions Explained

It has been held that the relevant provision for fastening the liability for failure to deduct TDS are contained in section 199 and 201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 

The Explanation to the provision of section 191 fastens liability on the Deductors to pay tax in the event TDS, as required by the Act, is not deducted/deposited, and the assessee has also not paid the tax directly, whereas the provision of section 201 mandates that if income tax is not deducted at source (TDS), the person responsible for deducting or depositing TDS may be deemed an "assessee in default". The conjoint and harmonious reading of the Explanations to section 191 and 1st Proviso to section 201, the Deductor has to furnish a certificate under Rule 31ACB of the Income Tax Rules in Form 26A that the payee has paid the tax due on the income. 

Rao Khem Chand Vidya Vihar Samiti v ITO [2026] GCtR 146 (ITAT, Delhi)

Society Membership

*Section 22(2) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 requires that when a society refuses admission, the decision with reasons be communicated to the applicant within 15 days of the decision or within three months from the date of receipt of the application for admission, whichever is earlier*. If the society does not communicate any decision within three months from the date of receipt, the applicant shall be deemed to have been admitted. The legal duty to communicate a refusal to an applicant arises under Section 22(2). The operative outer limit in the absence of an earlier decision is three months from the date of receipt of the application. The sixty day period in Section 23(2) is a limitation for filing an appeal against a communicated refusal; it is not a period within which the society must itself record a decision for Section 22(2) purposes. The statutory scheme separates the society’s obligation to communicate from the applicant’s right of appeal against a refusal. Where no refusal is shown to have been communicated within the statutory period, the statutory consequence is automatic deemed admission. The Deputy Registrar’s view in the appeal that an appeal under Section 23(2) requires a communicated refusal is legally sound. A challenge to a non-communicated decision is not maintainable under Section 23(2) because the statutory cause of action is a communicated refusal. The statute draw a distinction between admission to membership and enforcement of dues. A society may recover arrears by following the statutory recovery process which is already pending. It cannot simply refuse membership indefinitely on the ground that a dispute exists over alleged disputed dues if the statutory conditions for deemed admission have been met. - *Navjivan Commercial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd v General Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd [2026] GCtR 145 (Bombay)*

Cheque Dishonour and Offence by Company : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Position

Cheque Dishonour and Offence by Company : Supreme Court Explains the Legal Position

"The provisions of S. 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 impose vicarious liability by deeming fiction which presupposes and requires the commission of the offence by the company or firm. Therefore, unless the company or firm has committed the offence as a principal accused, the persons mentioned in sub-section (1) or (2) would not be liable and convicted as vicariously liable." 

Dilip Hariramani v. Bank of Baroda [2022] GCtR 2009 (SC)

Important Decisions of the year 2025 on Criminal Law

*Important Decisions of the year 2025 on Criminal Law* 

Dealing with a case involving allegations of S.420 of IPC, 1860 ("Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property") it is held that gravity and the nature of offence cannot be re-appreciated at the time of cancellation of the Bail, especially when it has been noticed that the allegations of the alleged forgery were also placed before the Magistrate, while the Order on Bail was made. - *Dilip Puri v. State [2025] GCtR 1922 (Delhi)*

It has been held that "any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search or seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible, and any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act, 1985 by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail." - *Gulam Hazrat Mirzale v. Customs [2025] GCtR 1923 (Delhi)*

It has been held that "the purpose of the TIP is that the witness, who claimed to have seen the culprit at the time of occurrence of the incident, is able to identify them in the midst of other people.  Dock identification, in a case where the accused is not previously known to the appellant, especially when it takes place when a long time has passed between the incident and the identification in Court, is a weak piece of evidence." - *Pawan Soni v. State GNCTD [2025] GCtR 1924 (Delhi)* 

"Inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are required to be exercised to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of any court. Further, the High Court can quash non-compoundable offences after considering the nature of the offence and the amicable settlement between the concerned parties. The cases arising out of matrimonial differences should be put to a quietus if the parties have reached an amicable settlement." - *Gaurav Redhu v. State GNCTD [2025] GCtR 1925 (Delhi)*

It has been held that the "offence under Section 279 of IPC is not an offence in personam, thereby that it affects society at large and not just the individual complainant". - *Abhay Gehlot v. State of NCTD [2025] GCtR 1926 (Delhi)*

It is held that "PMLA, 2002 and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 have distinct statutory frameworks and nature of proceedings. S. 50 of PMLA, 2002 confers criminal investigative powers on the ED involving summons for inquiries related to money laundering, which is a scheduled offence under PMLA, 2002 and involves criminal prosecution. In contrast, S. 37 of FEMA is primarily concerned with civil-administrative investigations of foreign exchange contraventions governed by a regulatory framework distinct from Criminal Law." - *Poonam Gahllot v. ED [2025] GCtR 1927 (Delhi)*

"The power to grant probation has to be exercised after keeping in mind the character of the offender, the nature of the offence and the overall circumstances of the case. The main object to grant probation to the offenders is to facilitate their reintegration into the society and aiding in their reformation." - *Jinte @ Jitender v. State of NCTD [2025] GCtR 1928 (Delhi)* 

Rights of Financial Creditors under IBC explained by Supreme Court

Rights of Financial Creditors under IBC explained by Supreme Court

"Initiation of proceedings by a financial creditor under other statutes does not bar filing of an application under the provisions of IBC, 2016. Moreover, mere pendency of a counterclaim for damages against a financial creditor will not operate as a bar on the right of the financial creditor to invoke the provisions of IBC."

B. Prashanth Hegde v. SBI [2026] GCtR 141 (SC)

Important Bombay Decisions : February 2026

Important Bombay Decisions : February 2026 

1. Vikrant Happy Homes Pvt Ltd v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 81 (Bombay)
2. Kartik Regency Coop. Housing society Ltd v State of Maharashtra [2026] GCtR 104 (Bombay)
3. Pratibha Industries Ltd v. Navi Municipal Corpn. Ltd [2026] GCtR 105 (Bombay)
4. Rajanialias Prabhavati Chittaranjan Patil Nee Rajani alias Prabhavati Laxman Thakur v Dahisar Siddhi Apartment CHSL [2026] GCtR 106 (Bombay)
5. Santosh Madhukar Pawar v. Indubai Eknath Pawar [2026] GCtR 115 (Aurangabad, Bombay)
6. Vandana v. State of Maharashtra [2026] GCtR 116 (Aurangabad, Bombay)
7. Shree Dev Shasan Jain Shwetambar Murtipujak Trust v Veer Tower CHS Ltd. [2026] GCtR 121 (Bombay)
8. Usha Kailash Kurhade v New India Assurance Co. Ltd [2026] GCtR 137 (Aurangabad, Bombay)
9. Dilip Bhanu Naik v. Deendayal Multipurpose [2026] GCtR 138 (Goa, Bombay)
10. Jagdish Kailash Shejav @ Dhananjay Kailash Shinde alias Danny v State of Maharashtra [2026] GCtR 139 (Bombay)
11. Premchand v. Ramakant Abhiman Patil [2026] GCtR 143 (Aurangabad, Bombay)
12. Sandeep Lahiri Choudhury v. SIDBI [2026] GCtR 144 (Bombay)
13. Navjivan Commercial Premises Co-operative Society Ltd v General Hydraulics Pvt. Ltd [2026] GCtR 145 (Bombay)
14. Yakub Salebhai Contractor v. State of Maharashtra [2026] GCtR 154 (Bombay)
15. The Mulund Endeavour Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v M/s Alag Property and Constructions Private Ltd. and Ors. [2026] GCtR 155 (Bombay)
16. Sujit Raghnuath Bangera v. State of Maharashtra [2026] GCtR 167 (Bombay)

Full text copies of decisions with Synopsis will be sent on email address free of cost to the followers of this blog who have mentioned their email address in "Comments" of this blog post. 

To become Follower of this Blog, please click on "Follow" option on right side of this blog post.

Important Criminal Law Decisions & the Legal Principles

Important Criminal Law Decisions & the Legal Principles

"A miscarriage of justice which may arise from the acquittal of guilty is no less than that from the conviction of an innocent. If there is miscarriage of justice from the acquittal, the higher Court would examine the matter as a Court of fact and appeal while correcting the errors of law and in appreciation of evidence as well. Then the Appellate Court may even proceed to record the judgment of guilt to meet the ends of justice, if it is really called for."  - *Govindaraju @ Govinda v State  [2012] GCtR 5827 (SC)*

"A complaint under Section 494 of the IPC, 1860 must be made by the aggrieved person. Section 498A of IPC does not fall in Chapter XX of the IPC. It falls in Chapter XXA. Section 198A permits a court to take cognizance of offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC upon a police report of facts which constitute offence."  - *Ushaben v. Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada  [2012] GCtR 5828 (SC)*

"If the accused really intended to commit the murder of the deceased and if they were armed with weapons like Lathis and Dhariyas of which the latter is a sharp-edged weapon, it is difficult to appreciate why they would not have attacked any vital part of his body. The absence of any injury on any vital part and particularly the absence of external injury on the skull clearly show that the accused had not intended to cause the death of the deceased nor caused any bodily injury as was likely to cause death." - *State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal  [2012] GCtR 5829 (SC)*

"Commencement and completion of an investigation is necessary to test the veracity of the alleged commission of an offence. Any kind of hindrance or obstruction of the process of law from taking its normal course, without any supervening circumstances, in a casual manner, merely on the whims and fancy of the court tantamounts to miscarriage of justice, which seems to be the case here."  - *State of Orissa v. Ujjal Kumar Burdhan [2012] GCtR 77 (SC)*

“Though the ocular testimony of witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence maybe disbelieved" - *Sayed Darain Ahsan @ Darain v State of WB [2012] GCtR 5830 (SC)*

Full text Copies of Judgments Available Free of cost here : 

https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/39150.pdf 

https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/39168.pdf 

https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/39165.pdf

https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/39160.pdf

https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/39163.pdf

To receive full text (PDF) Copies of Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court with synopsis directly on Whatsapp, please join GCtR's "SC Decisions" Whatsapp Group. Discounts Available for Advocates enrolled with Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. 

Vacancy for Legal Professionals in a Govt Organisation : Remuneration more than Rs. 2.16 lacs per month

Vacancy for Legal Professionals in a Govt Organisation : Remuneration more than Rs. 2.16 lacs per month

A govt organisation has issued notice for vacancy for legal professionals.

Last date to apply will expire before 8 March 2026.

Candidates with less than 60% in LLB Course are also eligible.

To obtain full text copy of this notification free of cost on your email address : - 

Please follow by clicking on Follow option on right side of the blog.

Kindly comment your email address in comments of this blog.

Inheritance of Property on Death of Parents : High Court Explains the Legal Position

Inheritance of Property on Death of Parents : High Court Explains the Legal Position

Dealing with a case where daughter (D) filed case against D's father (F) when property was originally bought by grandfather (GF) , it is held that property inherited by a person under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is taken by him in his individual capacity, and not as the karta of his family. 

Kritika Jain v Rakesh Jain [2025] GCtR 1921 (Delhi)

IBC / Insolvency Decisions : February 2026

 *Insolvency Decisions : February 2026*

1. Mukul Somany v. DBS Bank Ltd [2026] GCtR 132 (NCLAT)

2. Shiva Asphaltic Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvind Mittal [2026] GCtR 131 (NCLAT)

3. SBI v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 130 (SC)

4. Vishal Singh v. Nainital Bank Ltd [2026] GCtR 128 (NCLAT)

5. Puro Natural Sugars JV v Shree Warana Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. [2026] GCtR 127 (NCLAT)

6. Satinder Singh Bhasin versus Col. Gautam Mullick [2026] GCtR 99 (SC)

To obtain full text (PDF) Copies of above Decisions with Synopsis on your email free of cost, please mention your email address in comments and please become follower of this blog.

Insolvency Decisions 2026

*Insolvency Decisions 2026 : Mukul Somany v. DBS Bank Ltd [2026] GCtR 132 (NCLAT)*

Default before issuance of notice under Rule 7(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 must exist on the part of the personal guarantor and notice under Rule 7(1) cannot be treated as a notice invoking guarantee.

When Financial Creditors had not invoked the guarantee prior to issuing demand notice in Form B, the application under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 could not have been filed by Financial Creditor before invoking the guarantee. 

Insolvency Decisions 2026

*Insolvency Decisions : Shiva Asphaltic Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Arvind Mittal [2026] GCtR 131 (NCLAT)*

Extension of resolution plan under IBC, 2016 and conditions discussed. 

Insolvency Decisions 2026

*Insolvency Decisions 2026 : SBI v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 130 (SC)*

"Merely because spectrum can be treated as an “asset” on the basis of certain attributes, such as possession and usage, lease and assignment, claim and liability or credit and debt, the entirety of the telecom sector cannot be brought under the sweep of IBC, 2016."

IBC Decisions 2026

*Insolvency Decisions 2026 : Vishal Singh v. Nainital Bank Ltd [2026] GCtR 128 (NCLAT)*

Dismissing the appeal it has been held that any financial creditor, even being unsecured creditor, is within the right to file petition under S.7 of IBC, 2016 in case default occurs.  In this case, it was sought to be argued that the “Date of Default” is mandatory and must be specifically mentioned in Form1/Form-5 filed under Section 7 of the Code.

IBC Decisions 2026

*IBC Decisions 2026 : Puro Natural Sugars JV v Shree Warana Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. [2026] GCtR 127 (NCLAT)*

Dealing with case under IBC, 2016 it is held that when amount was indicated in the plan of Rs.2,00,00,000/- for towards assignment of all residual debts of the secured creditors which has been approved by the CoC with requisite vote shares, it is not open for the dissenting financial creditor to contend about amount being meagre or inadequate. 

Service Law and Arrears of Pension : Supreme Court highlights legal principles

Service Law and Arrears of Pension : Supreme Court highlights legal principles

Dealing with a case of disability pension, it has been held that "where the State itself, by a conscious policy decision, has determined that arrears of disability pension are payable from a specified cut off date, it is not open to it to subsequently resile and contend that such arrears ought to be confined to a period of three years preceding the claim."

Union of India v. Girish Kumar [2026] GCtR 125 (SC)

Legal Principles of Departmental Enquiry Explained by Supreme Court

Legal Principles of Departmental Enquiry Explained by Supreme Court

"In a departmental enquiry entailing consequences like loss of job which nowadays means loss of livelihood, there must be fair play in action."

K. Rajaiah v. High Court for State of Telangana [2026] GCtR 124 (SC)

Drafting of Bail Applications : Supreme Court Explains Key Principles

Drafting of Bail Applications : Supreme Court Explains Key Principles

"Every petitioner or applicant seeking bail, at any stage of proceedings, is under an obligation to disclose all material particulars, including criminal antecedents and the existence of any coercive processes such as issuance of non-bailable warrants, declaration as a proclaimed offender, or similar proceedings, duly supported by an affidavit, so as to promote uniformity, transparency and integrity in bail adjudication."

Zeba Khan v State of UP [2026] GCtR 123 (SC)

Advocate Empanelment Notice issued by Govt Organisation : Last date to apply will expire before 18 February 2026

Advocate Empanelment Notice issued by Govt Organisation : Last date to apply will expire before 18 February 2026

A reputed govt organisation has issued notice for empanelment of Advocates.

Certain years of practice is required.

Last date to apply will expire before 18 Feb 2026.

To obtain full text Copy of Notification on your email free of cost, please mention your email address in comments and please become follower of this blog.

Nature of Offence under PMLA, 2002 and Scope of S.3 of PMLA

Nature of Offence under PMLA, 2002 and Scope of S.3 of PMLA

Dismissing the petition filed by petitioner, it has been held that an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 constitutes an offence distinct from scheduled offences.  

Nitin Shambhukumar Kasliwal v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 122 (Indore, MP)

Arbitration and the Concept of Party under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Arbitration and the Concept of Party under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

"The use of the word 'and' in Sections 35 and 73 leads to an unmistakable conclusion that under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the concept of a “party” is distinct and different from the concept of “persons claiming through or under” a party to the arbitration agreement."

Shree Dev Shasan Jain Shwetambar Murtipujak Trust v Veer Tower CHS Ltd. [2026] GCtR 121 (Bombay)

Vacancy for Law Graduates in a Govt Organisation : Remuneration More than Rs. 94,500/- p.m.

Vacancy for Law Graduates in a Govt Organisation : Remuneration More than Rs. 94,500/- p.m.

A Reputed Govt organisation has issued notice for vacancy for law graduates.

Certain years of experience is also required.

Last date to apply will expire before 5 March 2026.

To obtain full text Copy of Notification on your email free of cost, please mention your email address in comments and please become follower of this blog.

Service Law and Selection of Judicial Officers

Service Law and Selection of Judicial Officers

Dealing with a case of Delhi Judicial Services Exam, it has been held that the right of an examinee to seek re-evaluation is not inherent; it is governed by the applicable statutory rules. Where the rules expressly prohibit re-evaluation, courts may interfere only in rare and exceptional cases involving demonstrable material error or manifest arbitrariness.

Prerna Gupta v. Registrar General [2026] GCtR 120 (Delhi)

Service Law and Legal Principles for Superannuation

Service Law and Legal Principles for Superannuation

When the language of a statutory rule is clear and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to its plain meaning. The substituted Rule 56(bb), of Fundamental Rules read as a whole, leaves little room for doubt that the age of superannuation remains 62 years and that continuation up to 65 years is conditional and confined to specified functional roles.

Vinod Kumar Jain v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 119 (Delhi)

Debt Payment and Legal Principles

Debt Payment and Legal Principles

"In terms of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 any payment made towards a debt before the expiration of the prescribed period results in commencement of a fresh period of limitation from the date of such payment." (page 11)

Citation : Federal Bank v. B M Bajaj [2026] GCtR 118 (Delhi)

Conciliation and Its Legal Aspects Explained by Supreme Court

Conciliation and Its Legal Aspects Explained by Supreme Court

"On a reading of Section 61 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, any conciliation between two parties brought about by following the procedure in Part III of the Act of 1996 would definitely get the status and effect of an Award under the Act of 1996 unless the parties have agreed otherwise; which agreement should be expressly for the exclusion of Part III of the Act of 1996, despite a conciliation having been proceeded with and concluded."

J. Muthurajan v. S. Vaikundarajan [2026] GCtR 117 (SC)

Criminal Law and Interpretation of S.306 of IPC

Criminal Law and Interpretation of S.306 of IPC

"Law is fairly settled as regards the applicability of Section 306 of IPC is concerned. Time and again, in umpteen judgments, it has been reiterated that, apart from inducement, direct instigation, active participation, there has to be mens rea also. The proximate trigger which led to suicide is also time and again clarified while dealing with above provision."

Vandana v. State of Maharashtra [2026] GCtR 116 (Aurangabad, Bombay)

Civil Procedure and Amendment of Pleadings

Civil Procedure and Amendment of Pleadings

What is discerned on reading Order VI Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is that, firstly, amendment of pleadings can be allowed, at any stage. Secondly, the proposed amendment must be shown to be necessary for determination of real question of controversy between the parties and if the amendment is sought to be brought after commencement of the trial, the court, while allowing the same, has to first to record a conclusion that, in spite of best efforts, a party to the proceedings could not bring the proposed amendment or document on record at earlier point of time.  

Santosh Madhukar Pawar v. Indubai Eknath Pawar [2026] GCtR 115 (Aurangabad, Bombay)

Land Acquisition and Law

Land Acquisition and Law

"Section 24(1)(a) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 is applicable to all those cases where awards are passed after the commencement of the 2013 Act."

Deputy Commissioner and SLAO v. S.V. Global Mill Ltd [2026] GCtR 114 (SC)

Delhi HC Decisions : February 2026 : Part 1

Delhi HC Decisions : February 2026 : Part 1

1. Prabhroop Kaur Kapoor v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 108 (Delhi)
2. Devyanshi Suryavanshi v. SSC [2026] GCtR 109 (Delhi)
3. TROPICAL INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD v VITTHAL CASHEW INDUSTRIES & ANR. [2026] GCtR 107 (Delhi)
4. ALLIED BLENDERS AND DISTILLERS LIMITED v BATRA BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES Pvt. Ltd [2026] GCtR 110 (Delhi)
5. Bhaskar Yadav v. ED [2026] GCtR 82 (Delhi)
6. Jay Fe Cylinders Ltd v. Manish Jain [2026] GCtR 111 (Delhi)
7. Zreyah Semiconducturs Pvt. Ltd v. Oyo Hotels and Homes Pvt. Ltd [2026] GCtR 112 (Delhi)
8. Pawan Kumar v. Sandeep Goel [2026] GCtR 113 (Delhi)
9. Dr. Vinod Kumar Jain v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 119 (Delhi) has held that when the language of a statutory rule is clear and unambiguous, the Court must give effect to its plain meaning. The substituted Rule 56(bb), of Fundamental Rules read as a whole, leaves little room for doubt that the age of superannuation remains 62 years and that continuation up to 65 years is conditional and confined to specified functional roles.
10. Prerna Gupta v. Registrar General [2026] GCtR 120 (Delhi) has held that the right of an examinee to seek re-evaluation is not inherent; it is governed by the applicable statutory rules. Where the rules expressly prohibit re-evaluation, courts may interfere only in rare and exceptional cases involving demonstrable material error or manifest arbitrariness.

Anyone interested in receiving full text (PDF) Copies of all these decisions with synopsis directly on email address free of cost, please follow 2 steps : 1. Click on "Follow" option on right side of blog to become follower of this blog. 2. Mention your email address in "Comments" section of this blog post.

Code of Civil Procedure

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Summary Suits - Order 37 - "Unlike ordinary civil suits, the defendants in Summary Suits are not entitled to defend as of right, but must apply for leave to defend. Order XXXVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides for a fast-track adjudicatory mechanism."  - TROPICAL INDUSTRIES INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD v VITTHAL CASHEW INDUSTRIES & ANR [2026] GCtR 107 (Delhi)

Hon'ble Delhi HC had pronounced 10 important judgments in the 1st week of February 2026. You can obtain full text PDF Copies of 10 important Judgments of Delhi HC pronounced in 1st week of February 2026 with Synopsis by availing GCtR's Subscription. Full text (PDF) Copies of Judgments are also available Free of cost on official website of Hon'ble High Court.

Money Laundering, PMLA, 2002 and the Effect of Amendments

Money Laundering, PMLA, 2002 and the Effect of Amendments

PMLA, 2002 was amended through an Amendment Act, 2012 which was published in the Gazette on 4 January 2013. This Amendment was also notified by then UPA-regime.

PMLA, 2002 was earlier amended in the year 2009 also under the then UPA-regime.

The PML (Amendment) Act of 2012 which was published in the year 2013 amended S.3 of PMLA. Phrase "proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition, or use and projecting or claiming" was incorporated in S.3 of PMLA.

S.30 of PML (Amendment) Act of 2012 amended the Schedule of PMLA. Part A of Schedule included S.420, S.120B, S.467, S.471 of IPC. Kindly note that S.467 of IPC was part of Schedule of PMLA, 2002 since the initial enactment of PMLA. 

S.2 (fa) was added to PMLA by PML (Amendment) Act of 2012 to define "beneficial owner".

S.24 of PMLA was also amended through PML (Amendment) Act of 2012 ; S.24 (a) was for offences and used shall presume whereas S.24 (b) was for any other person and used the phrase "may presume". 

S.44 dealt with trial of scheduled offence ; S.44 (iii)(c) deals with applications filed by the Authority. S.44 was also amended by PML (Amendment) Act of 2012.

Ownership of Land/Property : Who can Decide the Issue of Ownership ?

Ownership of Land/Property : Who can Decide the Issue of Ownership ?

"Questions of ownership and quantum of land require detailed examination of documents, factual scrutiny, and sometimes oral evidence. A writ court does not conduct a trial. It cannot convert its supervisory jurisdiction into a fact finding exercise."

Rajanialias Prabhavati Chittaranjan Patil Nee Rajani alias Prabhavati Laxman Thakur v Dahisar Siddhi Apartment CHSL [2026] GCtR 106 (Bombay)

Interference by Court under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Interference by Court under Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - "Application for Setting Aside Arbitral Awards" - It has been held that "S.34 Court must not lightly interfere with arbitral awards. The S.34 jurisdiction lends itself to disturbing arbitral awards strictly within the parameters legislated within S. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996". - Pratibha Industries Ltd v. Navi Municipal Corpn. Ltd [2026] GCtR 105 (Bombay)

PMLA and Law

PMLA and Law

In context of PMLA, 2002 it is held in Bhagwan Bhagat v. Union of India [2025] GCtR 1920 (Jharkhand) that "the process or activity connected with proceeds of crime is a continuing activity and continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime by its concealment or possession or acquisition or use or projecting it as untainted property or claiming it as untainted property in any manner whatsoever."

Further, the foundational premise of the PMLA is the laundering of "proceeds of crime," irrespective of whether the scheduled offence arises under the IPC or a special statute. Once the commission of the scheduled offence generates proceeds, the laundering of such proceeds falls squarely within Section 3 of the PMLA. 

the "proceeds of crime" include property not only derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence, meaning thereby, the words “any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relatable to the scheduled offence” will come under the fold of the proceeds of crime. 

defence on merit is not to be considered at the time of stage of framing of charge and that cannot be a ground of discharge. However, the defence of the accused cannot be looked into at the stage of discharge. The accused has no right to produce any document at that stage. 

In the aforesaid context, it needs to refer herein that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pavna Dibbur v. Directorate of Enforcement (Criminal Appeal No. 2779/2023) held that who could commit an offence under the PMLA may not be named in the scheduled offence.

It has further been clarified that if a person who is unconnected with the scheduled offence, knowingly assists the concealment of the proceeds of crime or knowingly assists the use of proceeds of crime, in that case, he can be held guilty of committing an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA. Therefore, it is not necessary that a person against whom the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is alleged must have been shown as the accused in the scheduled offence. 

Real Estate and Rights of Flat Purchasers : High Court Examines the Ambit of Rights

Real Estate and Rights of Flat Purchasers : High Court Examines the Ambit of Rights

"Section 11 of Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, 1963 is meant to give flat purchasers a workable remedy. Once a promoter has sold flats and the purchasers have come together to form a society, the promoter cannot indefinitely hold on to the title of the land and building." 

Kartik Regency Coop. Housing society Ltd v State of Maharashtra [2026] GCtR 104 (Bombay)

SC Decisions : February 2026

SC Decisions : February 2026

List Shared Below.

Important SC Decisions : February 2026

Important SC Decisions : February 2026

1. Sandeep Singh Bora v. Narendra Singh Deopa [2026] GCtR 80 (SC)

2. Rajia Begum v. Barnali Mukherjee [2026] GCtR 83 (SC)

3. Vinit Bahri v. MGF Developers Ltd [2026] GCtR 85 (SC)

4. Kanta v. Soma Devi [2026] GCtR 97 (SC)

5. REGINAMARY CHELLAMANI v. State [2026] GCtR 98 (SC)

6. Satinder Singh Bhasin v. Col. Gautam Mullick [2026] GCtR 99 (SC)

7. Mohtashem Billah Malik v. Sana Aftab [2026] GCtR 100 (SC) has held that "there is no dispute with the proposition that in matters of custody, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the children but nonetheless there are a host of other factors which weigh before the court while passing the final order of custody."

8. P. Suresh v. D. Kalaivani [2026] GCtR 101 (SC)

9. Pramod Kumar v. State of UP [2026] GCtR 102 (SC) has held that "power to direct further investigation in a case rests solely at the discretion of the Magistrate/Court concerned. In the event, the police/ investigating agency is of the opinion that further investigation is necessary in any  particular case to cull out complete facts and truth in the case, it is binding upon them to file an appropriate application before the Magistrate/Court, without directing an order for further investigation by themselves".

10. ITC Ltd v. Aashna Roy [2026] GCtR 103 (SC) has held that the damages cannot be awarded merely on presumptions or whims and fancies of the complainant.

11. Union of India v. Girish Kumar [2026] GCtR 125 (SC) on disability pension and time limit.

12. Zeba Khan v. State of UP [2026] GCtR 123 (SC) on bail principles.

13. K. Rajaiah v. High Court for State of Telagnana [2026] GCtR 124 (SC) on legal principles of departmental action for unauthorized absence.

14. Dr. Anand Rai v. State of MP [2026] GCtR 126 (SC) has held that appellate power under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 must be exercised in harmony with the broader framework of criminal procedure.

15. Sumit v. State of UP [2026] GCtR 129 (SC) has dealt with issues of criminal law. It was held that there is no restriction in Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to grant anticipatory bail even when charge sheet has been filed and cognizance is taken.

16. State Bank of India v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 130 (SC) has held that "merely because spectrum can be treated as an “asset” on the basis of certain attributes, such as possession and usage, lease and assignment, claim and liability or credit and debt, the entirety of the telecom sector cannot be brought under the sweep of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016".

17. State Bank of India v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 134 (SC) has held that "it is well established that the decision in Uma Devi does not intend to penalize employees who have rendered long years of service fulfilling ongoing and necessary functions of the State or its instrumentalities." 

18. Zubair. P v. State of Kerala [2026] GCtR 135 (SC) has dealt with issue of eligibility for appointment of teachers. It was held that interpretation must depend on the text and the context and that the statute must be read as a whole so as to advance its object and suppress the mischief. It was observed that a construction which leads to absurdity or defeats the purpose of the enactment must be avoided. A purposive and contextual reading of Rule 6 of Chapter XXXII of the Kerala Education Rules compels the conclusion that the SET qualification must necessarily correspond to the subject of appointment, even if the Rule does not expressly reiterate the phrase “concerned subject” in clause (iii) of the said Rule.

19. B. Prashanth Hegde v. SBI [2026] GCtR 141 (SC) has held that "initiation of proceedings by a financial creditor under other statutes does not bar filing of an application under the provisions of IBC, 2016. Moreover, mere pendency of a counterclaim for damages against a financial creditor will not operate as a bar on the right of the financial creditor to invoke the provisions of IBC."

20. Harbinder Singh Sekhon v. State of Punjab [2026] GCtR 142 (SC) has held that "Judicial restraint in matters of regulatory policy remains a settled principle. However, restraint cannot extend to abdication. Where regulatory action results in a lowering of the constitutional minimum of protection guaranteed to citizens, particularly in matters affecting life and health, judicial intervention becomes a constitutional obligation."

21. Rohit Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh [2026] GCtR 151 (SC) while acquitting murder accused it is held that "even if there is no formal arrest made, if a person is within the ken of surveillance of the police, during which his movements are restricted, then it can be regarded as custodial surveillance. The evidence under S.8 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can only offer corroboration and cannot by itself result in a conviction."

22. Parameshwari v. State of Tamil Nadu [2026] GCtR 150 (SC) has held that "the misplaced understanding of various courts in treating compensation as a substitute of sentence is both a matter of concern and a practice which should be condemned. Compensation payable to the victim is only restitutory in nature, and it cannot be considered as equivalent to or a substitute for punishment." 

23. Priyanka Kumari v. State of Bihar [2026] GCtR 149 (SC) was a case where the degree was obtained by librarian from a University and the Act under which said university was set up was declared invalid later on, it was held that the candidates who had obtained degrees cannot be deprived of the job under certain situations when the university was not bogus .

24. In Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt Ltd v. Amit Chaturvedi [2026] GCtR 161 (SC) after noting that S.391 of the Companies Act, 1956 speaks of a compromise or arrangement between a company and inter alia its creditors if a majority of the creditors representing 3/4th value of the debt, agree to such compromise or arrangement in a meeting of such creditors present and voting, either in person or through proxies; which meeting has to be directed by the Court on an application under sub-section (1) by the Company or any creditor, it was concluded that when scheme is defunct then there is no reason to stall the proceedings for initiation of the CIRP by resorting to the provisions of the IBC, 2016.

25. ICICI Bank v. Era Infrastructure Ltd [2026] GCtR 164 (SC) has held in context of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 that though the IBC primarily operates in the judicial and quasi-judicial arena, its effects are far reaching, often affecting banking, economy, and other sectors.

26. It was held in  C. Velusamy v. K. Indhera [2026] GCtR 172 (SC) that an application under Section 29A(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for extension of the mandate of the arbitrator is *maintainable even after the expiry of the time under Sections 29A(1) and (3) and even after rendering of an arbitral award during that time*. Such an arbitral award is ineffective and unenforceable. But the power of the court to consider extension is not impaired by such an indiscretion of the arbitrator. While considering the application, the Court will examine if there is sufficient cause for extending the mandate, and in the process, it may impose such terms and conditions as the situation demands.

Anyone interested in receiving full text (PDF) Copies of all these decisions with synopsis directly on email address free of cost, please follow 2 steps : 1. Click on "Follow" option on right side of blog to become follower of this blog. 2. Mention your email address in "Comments" section of this blog post.