- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Supreme Court allows proceedings against non-signatory to dishonored cheque
Supreme Court allows proceedings against non-signatory to dishonored cheque Earlier, the Madras High Court had refused to quash the action against the joint-account holder stating the issue be decided in trial The Supreme Court has allowed proceedings to continue against a non-signatory to a dishonored cheque. It noted that the court could not decide on the contention that such...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Supreme Court allows proceedings against non-signatory to dishonored cheque
Earlier, the Madras High Court had refused to quash the action against the joint-account holder stating the issue be decided in trial
The Supreme Court has allowed proceedings to continue against a non-signatory to a dishonored cheque. It noted that the court could not decide on the contention that such proceedings were not legally valid in a plea to quash the case.
In the V Samhidha vs KS Senathypathy case, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan dismissed a plea filed on behalf of a woman, V Samhidha, who operated a joint bank account with her father, and a cheque had bounced.
Justice Nagarathna remarked, "The point of law is correct. But not (a ground to grant relief) in this case, in a quashing petition.”
In March, the Apex Court issued a notice in the matter, raising a question of whether a non-signatory to a dishonored cheque could be prosecuted for being a joint-account holder.
The appeal was filed against an order of the Madras High Court, which refused to quash the proceedings against the joint-account holders on the ground that the issue ought to be decided in trial.
In 2016, a complaint was lodged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in connection with a Rs. 20 lakh loan payment, after a cheque bounced. The bank account was jointly held by a mill owner and his daughter, V Samhidha. Pertinently, the daughter did not sign the cheque and lodged a complaint.
In 2018, she approached the High Court seeking the quashing of proceedings before a Coimbatore magistrate and alleging that no loan was involved.
Early this year, the High Court refused to enter the merits of the matter and dismissed the plea.
V Samhidha was represented by advocates B Ragunath and Sriram Parakkat.