NDPS | Mentioning FIR Number On Memos Before Registration Makes the Entire Recovery Suspect: Himachal Pradesh High Court MACT | Once Deceased Is Proven To Be Skilled Worker, Deputy Commissioner's Wage Notification Is Applicable: P&H HC Bank’s Technical Excuses Can’t Override Employee’s Right to Ex Gratia Under Old Circulars: Bombay High Court Slams Canara Bank’s Rejection of Claim Once Worker Files Affidavit of Unemployment, Burden Shifts to Employer to Prove Gainful Employment: Delhi High Court Grants 17B Relief Despite 12-Year Delay Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Limitation Act | Quasi-Judicial Bodies Cannot Invoke Section 5 Principles Without Express Statutory Grant: Supreme Court Arbitration Act | Commencement of Proceedings Triggered by Notice Receipt, Not Section 11 Filing: Supreme Court Strong and Cogent Evidence Must Exist at the Threshold to Deny Bail Under Section 319 CrPC: Supreme Court Appellate Court Under Section 37 Cannot Sit in Appeal Over Arbitral Award on Merits: Supreme Court Affidavit Ratifying Power of Attorney Cannot Be Disowned Later: Supreme Court Orders Specific Performance Despite Earlier Revocation Claims No Law Empowers a Corporation to Haunt a Retiree: Supreme Court Quashes Post-Retirement Disciplinary Action for Want of Jurisdiction Mere Expectation of Higher Bids Can't Justify Cancelling a Valid Auction: Supreme Court Quashes GDA’s Arbitrary Rejection of Highest Bidder Prolonged Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21, Even in Grave Economic Offences: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Arvind Dham in ₹673 Crore PMLA Case Article 14 | ‘Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midstream’: Supreme Court Quashes Punjab’s Modified Sports Quota Policy for MBBS Admissions Rules of the Game Cannot Be Changed Midway: Supreme Court Quashes Bihar’s Retrospective Recruitment Amendment "Imaginary Ghost" - Court Permits Karthigai Deepam at Thiruparankundram ‘Deepathoon’: Madras High Court 353 IPC | Continuing Prosecution Against Citizens Despite Statutory Findings of Police Atrocities Is Abuse of Process: Kerala High Court Court Cannot Compel Plaintiff to Continue Suit Where No Liberty to File Fresh Suit is Sought: Bombay High Court Claim for Demurrage is Not a Crystallized Debt—Only an Unadjudicated Right to Sue: Andhra Pradesh High Court Declared Foreign Nationals Have No Right to Reside in India: Gauhati High Court Upholds Expulsion of Bangladeshi Woman Without Requiring Deportation Protocols

Cheque Issued as Security, When Dishonored, Attracts Section 138 N.I. Act – Delhi High Court Upholds Legal Obligation

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, has reinforced the legal obligations pertaining to the dishonor of cheques, even when issued as security. The judgment was passed by Hon’ble Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar in the case of Payal Malhotra vs. Sulekh Chand.

In the verdict pronounced on November 29, the court emphasized that a cheque issued for security, upon dishonor, does indeed fall under the ambit of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Justice Bhatnagar noted, “It is trite law that when a cheque given for the purpose of security is dishonored, Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, will be attracted.”

The case revolved around the petitioner, Payal Malhotra, seeking the quashing of proceedings against her in a case of a dishonored cheque for Rs. 5,82,217, claimed to have been issued as a security measure and not as part of a legally enforceable debt.

The petitioner argued that the cheque was misused by the respondent, Sulekh Chand, and that there was no existing debt or liability. However, the court pointed out that the accused’s defense can only be proved in a court of law and cannot be a ground for quashing proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

“The parameters of the jurisdiction of the High Court, in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC, are now almost well-settled. Although it has wide amplitude, a great deal of caution is also required in its exercise,” Justice Bhatnagar remarked, highlighting the limited scope of the High Court’s intervention in such matters.

The judgment referenced several Supreme Court decisions, including NEPC Micon Limited and Others vs. Magma Leasing Limited, which reiterate the serious consequences of cheque dishonor.

Date of Decision: 29 November 2023

PAYAL MALHOTRA VS SULEKH CHAND

Latest Legal News