Kerala High Court holds that a partnership firm's name change does not affect standing to prosecute under Section 138 NI Act; presumption of liability stands unless rebutted by credible evidence.
Kerala High Court upholds conviction under Section 138 NI Act, holding partners liable for dishonoured cheques issued by their firm. Key principles on vicarious liability and evidentiary standards clarified.
Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that security cheques issued for commercial liability can trigger Section 138 NI Act prosecution; presumption of debt applies if signature is admitted.
Delhi High Court holds that a director who resigned before cheque issuance cannot be held liable under Section 141 NI Act unless formally recorded with ROC. Key precedent on procedural compliance.
Madhya Pradesh High Court clarifies that cheque dishonour in sale of goods does not automatically qualify as a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Kerala High Court holds that inability to identify accused in court after years does not negate proof of cheque issuance under Section 138 NI Act. Key precedent for evidentiary standards.
Bombay High Court clarifies that directors cannot be automatically prosecuted under Section 138 NI Act without proof of active involvement in cheque dishonour offences.
Bombay High Court holds that prosecution under Section 138 NI Act against partners requires clear allegation of involvement and privity of contract; mere designation insufficient.
Chhattisgarh High Court quashes criminal complaint under IPC for cheque dishonour, holding that mere breach of contract lacks dishonest intent required for Section 420 IPC.