Absence of Videography Alone Not Sufficient For Bail When Custody is Less Than a Year: Delhi High Court Refuses Bail in Commercial Quantity Heroin Use of Permitted Synthetic Colour in Dal Masur Still Constitutes Adulteration: Punjab & Haryana High Court Uphold Conviction Penalty Must Not Result in Civil Death of Professionals: Delhi High Court Reduces Two-Year Suspension of Insolvency Professional, Citing Disproportionate Punishment Right of Cross-Examination is Statutory, Cannot Be Denied When Documents Are Exhibited Later: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows Re-Cross-Examination Compounding after Adjudication is Impermissible under FEMA: Calcutta High Court Declines Post-Adjudication Compounding Plea Tears of a Child Speak Louder Than Words: Bombay HC Confirms Life Term for Man Who Raped 4-Year-Old Alleged Dowry Death After Forced Remarriage: Allahabad High Court Finds No Evidence of Strangulation or Demand “Even If Executant Has No Title, Registrar Must Register the Document If Formalities Are Met” — Supreme Court  Declares Tamil Nadu's Rule 55A(i) Ultra Vires the Registration Act, 1908 Res Judicata Is Not Optional – It’s Public Policy: Supreme Court Slams SEBI for Passing Second Final Order in Fraud Case Against Vital Communications Ltd A Person Has Died… Insurance Company Cannot Escape Liability Without Proving Policy Violation: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Exonerating Insurer in Fatal Accident Case Calling Someone by Caste Name Is Not Enough – It Must Be Publicly Done to Attract SC/ST Act: Supreme Court Acquits All in Jharkhand Land Dispute Case Broken Promises Don’t Make Rape – Mature Adults in Long-Term Relationships Must Accept Responsibility: Supreme Court Quashes Rape Case Against NRI Man Every Broken Relationship Can’t Be Branded Rape: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Retired Judge Accused of Sexual Exploitation on Promise of Marriage No Evidence, No Motive, Not Even Proof of Murder: Supreme Court Slams Conviction, Acquits Man Accused of Killing Wife After Two Years of Marriage You Can’t Assume Silence Is Consent: Supreme Court Sends Back ₹46 Lakh Insurance Dispute to NCDRC for Fresh Determination “Voyage Must Start and End Before Monsoon Sets In — But What If That’s Practically Impossible?” SC Rules Against Insurance Company in Shipping Dispute No Criminal Case Can Be Built on a Land Deal That’s Three Decades Old Without Specific Allegations: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Ex-JK Housing Chief Just Giving a Call for Protest Doesn’t Make One Criminally Liable - Rail Roko Protest Quashed Against KCR Ex-CM: Telangana High Court Ends 13-Year-Old Proceedings for 2011 Telangana Agitation

Security Cheques Are Legally Enforceable if Liability Exists at Maturity: Rajasthan High Court

14 January 2025 12:56 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


The High Court of Rajasthan has upheld the legality of security cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) in a significant ruling involving faculty members of Vibrant Academy, a prominent IIT JEE coaching institute. The court dismissed the petitions seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated due to cheque dishonour, emphasizing that security cheques can be legally enforceable if they represent a liability at the time of presentation.

The court observed that the cheques issued by the petitioners, although undated at issuance, became enforceable upon their presentation due to a breach of contract by the petitioners. Justice Anil Kumar Upman noted, "The relevant date for determining the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability under the NI Act would be the date of presentation/maturity of the cheque in question."

Addressing the petitioners' argument that no debt existed at the time of cheque issuance, the court reiterated that the enforceability of a security cheque arises from the liability existing at the time of its presentation. The ruling cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr., emphasizing that "a cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date mentioned in the cheque, which is the date of maturity."

The court highlighted that post-dated cheques issued as security are valid under Section 138 of the NI Act if a liability exists on the maturity date. It clarified that the presumption of a legally enforceable debt arises if the cheque is dishonoured due to insufficient funds, provided the drawer fails to make the payment within the stipulated period after receiving the legal notice.

Justice Anil Kumar Upman remarked, "In any case, when there is legal presumption, it would not be judicious for the quashing Court to carry out a detailed enquiry on the facts alleged, without first permitting the trial Court to evaluate the evidence of the parties."

This landmark judgment underscores the enforceability of security cheques under Section 138 of the NI Act, reinforcing the legal framework for cheque transactions in commercial contracts. By affirming the trial court's cognizance of the cases, the High Court sends a clear message about the legitimacy of security cheques and their role in ensuring contractual obligations. The decision is expected to influence future cases involving post-dated cheques, emphasizing the date of maturity as the critical point for establishing liability.

Date of Decision: May 3, 2024
 

Similar News