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

Wife Not Liable in Joint Account - Only the Drawer Liable Under Section 138 N.I. Act: High Court Quashes Complaint

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that clarifies the scope of liability in cheque dishonour cases, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has set a precedent in the case of Shalu Arora Vs. Tanu Bathla (CRM M-21768-2022). The court, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat, emphatically stated that “only the drawer of the cheque can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.”

This landmark judgement, delivered on November 30, 2023, revolved around a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Act, concerning a cheque issued from a joint account but signed by only one of the account holders. The petitioner, Shalu Arora, who was not the signatory of the disputed cheque, sought the quashing of the complaint and subsequent summoning order.

Justice Shekhawat, in his observation, underscored the principle of specificity in liability, asserting that the onus of the offence under Section 138 lies solely with the signatory of the cheque. This assertion is grounded in the interpretation of Section 7 of the Act, which delineates the definition of ‘drawer’ and explicitly states the liability of the signatory in cases of cheque dishonour.

The court’s decision has been widely appreciated for its clear demarcation of accountability in cheque dishonour cases, especially those involving joint accounts. Advocates Karan Suneja and R.K. Chaudhary represented the petitioner and respondent, respectively, in this pivotal case.

Date of Decision: 30.11.2023

Shalu Arora VS Tanu Bathla   

Latest Legal News