1. Rangappa v. Sri Mohan
📌 (2010) 11 SCC 441
Held:
Presumption under Section 139 includes existence of legally enforceable debt.
Accused can rebut only on preponderance of probabilities.
2. Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya Hegde
📌 (2008) 4 SCC 54
Held:
Presumption does not dispense with proof of foundational facts.
(Limited later by Rangappa).
3. Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi
📌 (1998) 3 SCC 249
Held:
“Stop payment” instructions do not absolve drawer from Section 138 liability.
4. ICDS Ltd. v. Beena Shabeer
📌 (2002) 6 SCC 426
Held:
Cheque issued as security can still attract Section 138 if liability exists.
5. MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan
📌 (2013) 1 SCC 177
Held:
Cheque can be presented multiple times; notice after last dishonour is valid.
6. Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra
📌 (2014) 9 SCC 129
Held:
Jurisdiction lies where drawee bank is situated
(Later modified by statutory amendment).
7. Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. v. Inderpal Singh
📌 (2016) 2 SCC 75
Held:
Post-amendment, jurisdiction lies where payee’s bank is located.
8. K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan
📌 (1999) 7 SCC 510
Held:
Section 138 offence consists of 5 components (drawing, presentation, dishonour, notice, failure to pay).
9. C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed
📌 (2007) 6 SCC 555
Held:
Refusal or non-claim of notice = deemed service.
10. Goa Plast (P) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D’Souza
📌 (2004) 2 SCC 235
Held:
Even if drawer disputes debt, statutory presumption continues.
11. P. Mohanraj v. Shah Brothers Ispat Pvt. Ltd.
📌 (2021) 6 SCC 258
Held:
Section 138 proceedings are quasi-criminal; covered under IBC moratorium.
12. Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd.
📌 (2012) 5 SCC 661
Held:
For Section 141, company must be arraigned before directors are prosecuted.
13. S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla
📌 (2005) 8 SCC 89
Held:
Specific averment that accused was in charge of business is mandatory.
14. National Small Industries Corp. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal
📌 (2010) 3 SCC 330
Held:
Mere designation as director not enough; role must be pleaded.
15. Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar
📌 (2019) 4 SCC 197
Held:
Blank signed cheque voluntarily given attracts presumption under Section 139.
16. Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa
📌 (2019) 5 SCC 418
Held:
Accused can rely on complainant’s evidence to rebut presumption.
17. Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets
📌 (2009) 2 SCC 513
Held:
Mere denial insufficient; defence must be probable.
18. Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat
📌 (2019) 18 SCC 106
Held:
Once signature admitted, presumption arises automatically.
19. Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee
📌 (2001) 6 SCC 16
Held:
Presumption under Sections 118 & 139 is mandatory, not discretionary.
20. Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H.
📌 (2010) 5 SCC 663
Held:
Section 138 offence is compoundable at any stage.
21. Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. v. Kanchan Mehta
📌 (2018) 1 SCC 560
Held:
Section 138 cases should be disposed summarily; emphasis on compensation.
22. Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat
📌 (2012) 13 SCC 375
Held:
Dishonour due to “account closed”, “payment stopped” falls under Section 138.
23. Kaushalya Devi Massand v. Roopkishore Khore
📌 (2011) 4 SCC 593
Held:
Object of Section 138 is compensatory, not purely punitive.
24. R. Vijayan v. Baby
📌 (2012) 1 SCC 260
Held:
Courts should award realistic compensation to complainant.
25. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. v. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd.
📌 (2014) 12 SCC 539
Held:
Cheque issued for advance payment (no debt on date of issuance) does not attract Section 138.