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. 

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. 

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 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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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.

Filing of Applications under IBC, 2016 : Supreme Court Clarifies the Legal Position

Filing of Applications under IBC, 2016 : Supreme Court Clarifies the Legal Position

It has been held till the objections in an application filed under Sections 7, 9 or 10 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are removed, it is not to be treated as an application validly filed, as it is only after the application is complete in every respect that it is required to be entertained. 

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

Duty of Trial Courts Explained by Supreme Court

Duty of Trial Courts Explained by Supreme Court

It was noted that the accused did not cross examine the witnesses at the initial stage and it was only after she engaged her own counsel and her application for re-examining those witnesses was allowed that she was permitted to do so. It is incumbent upon the trial Courts dealing with criminal proceedings, faced with such situations, to inform the accused of their right to legal representation and their entitlement to be represented by legal aid counsel in the event they cannot afford a counsel. The trial Courts shall record the offer made to the accused in this regard, the response of the accused to such offer and also the action taken thereupon in their orders, before commencing examination of the witnesses. 

Reginamary Chellamani v. State [2026] GCtR 98 (SC)

What are the Essential Things to Obtain Injunction : Supreme Court Highlights the Legal Position

What are the Essential Things to Obtain Injunction : Supreme Court Highlights the Legal Position

Disposing of a civil appeal after more than 13 years, it has been held that when suit is one for perpetual injunction, alternatively for recovery of possession, then the plaintiff for the relief of perpetual injunction, along with prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, must also prove the actual possession of the suit schedule on the date of filing of the suit. It is axiomatic that possession on the date of filing the suit is an essential requisite for granting perpetual injunction.

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

Essentials of Prosecution under PMLA, 2002 Explained by High Court

Essentials of Prosecution under PMLA, 2002 Explained by High Court

Law relating to PMLA, 2002 was explained in Manoj Kumar Babulal Punamiya v. State of Jharkhand [2025] GCtR 1919 (Jharkhand) and the petition filed by accused was dismissed. S.2(1)(u) of PMLA, 2002 indicates that in the explanation it has been referred that for removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "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.

In this case, accused in ECIR under PMLA, 2002 was not an accused in the FIR of scheduled offence and HC dismissed the petition of accused filed in respect of prosecution under PMLA, 2002.

Change of State of Members of IPS : Supreme Court Answers the Legal Position

Change of State of Members of IPS : Supreme Court Answers the Legal Position

Dealing with case of change of State cadre of member of IPS, it has been held that finality has to be attached to the process of selection. Claim made by member of IPS for change of cadre from State 1 to State 2 was rejected.

Rupesh K. Meena v. Union of India [2026] GCtR 96 (SC)

Notice issued by Govt Organisation for Empanelment of Advocates : Last Date to Apply will expire before 15 Feb 2026

Notice issued by Govt Organisation for Empanelment of Advocates : Last Date to Apply will expire before 15 Feb 2026

Notice has been issued by a Govt. organisation for empanelment of Advocates.

Last date to apply will expire before 15 February 2026.

Panel will be valid for 3 years.

Full text copy of notification is uploaded on the official website of the organisation.

Anyone who is interested in receiving full text (PDF) copy of notification directly on their email address, they may click on Follow option on right side of this blog and mention your email address in "Comments" section of this post.