No Arbitration Agreement, No Arbitrator: Supreme Court Voids Award Made Without Municipal Council's Consent, Calls Entire Proceedings "Coram Non Judice" Post-Disposal Miscellaneous Applications Maintainable Only In Rare Situations; Court Becomes Functus Officio After SLP Dismissal: Supreme Court Vague & Omnibus Allegations Against Relatives In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Nipped In The Bud; 7-Year Delay In FIR Fatal: Supreme Court State Can Withdraw Electricity Duty Exemption For Captive Power Plants In Public Interest But Must Give One-Year Notice Period: Supreme Court DSC Personnel Entitled To Second Pension; Shortfall In Service Up To 12 Months Can Be Condoned: Supreme Court Person Professing Christianity Cannot Claim Scheduled Caste Status To Invoke SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Except Matters One May, But Exclude Justice One Cannot: Supreme Court Restores Arbitral Award, Holds State Cannot Be Judge In Its Own Cause On Disputed Breach When State Requisitions Your Vehicle For Elections And It Kills Someone, The State Pays — Not Your Insurer: Supreme Court Land Acquisition | Financial Burden Cannot Defeat Constitutional Right to Just Compensation: Supreme Court Unsigned Charge Is A Curable Irregularity, Won't Vitiate Trial Unless 'Failure Of Justice' Is Shown: Supreme Court Tenant Files Fresh Petition Before Rent Authority After Supreme Court Dismisses SLP, Review And Misc Application — Court Calls It "Gross Abuse of Process", Voids Restoration Order Taxation Law | Exemption For Naphtha Depends On 'Intended Use' At Procurement, Not Actual Exclusive Use: Supreme Court Army's Own Grading System Worked Against Women Officers For Years — Supreme Court Grants Permanent Commission, Pension To Short Service Women Officers

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