Knowledge Portal
PDICAI Search
| More
Home Opportunities Prof Interest Forum News Judgments Circulars Reckoner
Registered Users : 146027 Current Active Users : 81968                      Create Your Website 
knowledge links
 
 
Registration
To Register
Enter Membership No.
 
Countries
View All Countries
 
Hall of Fame
Top 5 Forum Answerers
Member NameAnswer Posted
CA. Pawan Kumar Jain,Nagpur 4251
SIVADAS CHETTOOR,palakkad 3033
CA SANDEEP D JAIN, NAGPUR 2900
CA. VENKITARAMAN K V,PALAKKAD 2859
Madhukar N Hiregange,Bangalore 1942
View Top 50 Forum Answerers
members login
Login-ID 
Password 
Forgot Password!
 
Look Up
Advanced Look-Up
Forum Look-Up
 
NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1981
25/10/2005
MD is liable for dishonour of cheque
It was only after the amendment to the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, with effect from April 1, 1989, that teeth were provided to the enactment by stipulating a specific remedy in the case of bounced cheques. Although, when the Act was amended and a specific provision was made therein, it was believed that the new measure would result in cheap, quick and effective remedy. According to a just reported case, the Supreme Court recently had the opportunity of considering similar issues in the case of SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd.v Neeta Bhalla [2005] 63 SCL 93 (SC). Three issues were raised in that case for the consideration of the apex court, in terms of section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
28/09/2005
M J Antony: Cheques and balances
The number of cheques issued without money in the bank must be quite large, going by the litigation over the dishonoured ones. Last week, the Supreme Court dealt with 16 of them in a common judgement, SMS Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla.
| More