Bijoy Kumar Moni Vs. Paresh Manna & Anr

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Bijoy Kumar Moni...

In Bijoy Kumar Moni vs. Paresh Manna & Anr., the Supreme Court clarified that for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the cheque must be drawn on an account maintained by the accused. It emphasized that an authorized signatory of a company cannot be considered the “drawer” of the cheque and that prosecution under Section 138 cannot be sustained solely against the signatory if the principal offender (the company) is not arraigned as an accused. Relying on Shri Gurudatta Sugars Marketing (P) Ltd. v. Prithviraj Sayajirao Deshmukh & Ors., the Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s acquittal of the director, highlighting that liability under Section 138 is strict and applies specifically to the drawer of the cheque, thereby dismissing the criminal appeal.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Dharmendra Sharma Vs. Agra Development Authority, 2024 INSC 667

The Supreme Court addressed a dispute over the delayed possession of an apartment. The appellant sought a refund with interest due to the respondent’s failure to provide necessary completion and firefighting clearance certificates. When the Respondent had pleaded the application to be barred by limitation on the ground that the date on which the possession... Read more » Read more »

The Beneficial intention of a legislation shall be given primacy in cases where two views prevail

Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit (2025 INSC 20)Date of Judgment: 2 January 2025 In Urmila Dixit v. Sunil Sharan Dixit 2025 INSC 20, the Supreme Court ruled on the applicability of Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. The case revolved around a mother who had gifted... Read more » Read more »

When To File a Second FIR – Supreme Court Reiterates

The Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Rajasthan v. Surendra Singh Rathore (2025 INSC 248) provides much-needed clarity on the circumstances under which a second FIR can be maintained. By holding that a second FIR is justified in cases involving counter-complaints, distinct scopes, broader conspiracies, or newly emerged facts, the Court has reinforced the principle... Read more » Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.