India's Supreme Court Disagrees with Kerala High Court on Cheque Bounce Law скачать в хорошем качестве

India's Supreme Court Disagrees with Kerala High Court on Cheque Bounce Law

"In this video, we analyze the latest Supreme Court judgment, discuss the grounds for the decision, and provide a comprehensive legal summary. Perfect for law students, legal professionals, and anyone interested in judicial decisions. Stay updated with daily legal news and judgments. Subscribe for more legal analysis and case studies. #negotiableinstrumentsact #138niact #keralahighcourt #supremecourtofindia #supremecourtruling #negotiableinstrumentsact #legallyenforceabledebt #chequebouncecase #chequebounceinunsecured #niact #highcourtofkerala #courtroom #courtcase Supreme Court of India record of proceedings for a Special Leave Petition (Criminal). The petition number is Diary No(s). 4773/2025 and it is related to a judgment from the High Court of Judicature at Madras at Madurai. The case involves the petitioner, K.K.D. Pandian, and the respondent, S. Tamilselvi. The matter was called for a hearing on August 18, 2025, before a two-judge bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Joymalya Bagchi. The court issued a notice to the respondent, returnable in six weeks, to address the core legal question of the case. The central issue is whether a cheque issued as part of a compromise for a payment that is not a "legally enforceable debt" can be a valid basis for a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881. The petitioner's counsel referred to a High Court of Kerala case, C.V. Rajan Vs lllikkal Ramesan, which held that the law does not prohibit a person from repaying an amount obtained through an illegal promise. The petitioner's argument is that even an agreement considered void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 can still be subject to the NI Act's Section 138 if a compromise results in an unpaid cheque. The Supreme Court, however, had a different initial view. The court stated that the principle from the Kerala High Court case might not be applicable in this context and may not align with the statutory provisions of the NI Act. The court noted that a compromise for an illegal payment might not be considered a "legally enforceable debt," which is a requirement for a Section 138 proceeding. The document also mentions that the court granted applications for condonation of delay and exemption from filing the impugned judgment.