Negotiable Instruments Act

Bribe amount not a legally enforceable liability under NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court
NI Act complaint will lie even if cheque bounce was due to account freezing: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Courts should encourage settlement in cheque dishonour cases if parties are willing: Supreme Court
What Punjab & Haryana High Court said in its first order on Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Limitation period for applying to court for appointment of arbitrator: A necessary reform
Courts should be more empathetic when liberty of women is in question: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Technical defects should not come in the way of justice: Supreme Court restores trial in cheque bounce case
Supreme Court agrees to hear plea on whether prosecution under Section 138 NI Act requires signatory to be made party
Cheque bouncing cases not akin to civil proceedings; IBC process does not extinguish criminal case: Supreme Court
Authorised signatory cannot be directed to pay interim compensation for dishonour of cheque: Bombay High Court
Cannot confirm conviction under Section 138 NI Act overriding agreement between parties to compound offence: Supreme Court
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act cannot be rebutted unless cogent evidence is led by accused: Supreme Court
Dishonour of cheques: Is it mandatory to implead a company in order to convict directors? Supreme Court to decide
Negotiable Instruments Act cases: A further tilt towards the ‘civil sheep’
Whether cheque was issued for time barred debt or not cannot be decided in quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court
[Section 138 NI Act cases] Complainant not required to show nature of transaction or source of fund due to Section 139 presumption: Supreme Court
Supreme Court stays cheating case against Ameesha Patel in relation to cheque bounce case
[Section 143A NI Act] Right to cross-examine witness cannot be denied citing failure to deposit interim compensation: Supreme Court
[Section 138 NI Act] No vicarious liability under Section 141 merely because a person was partner at firm which took loan: Supreme Court
Banks cannot deny existence of account if cheque returned with 'Account Frozen' remark: Supreme Court
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
www.barandbench.com