{"id":4903,"date":"2025-02-18T20:35:42","date_gmt":"2025-02-18T15:05:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/?p=4903"},"modified":"2025-03-12T01:27:01","modified_gmt":"2025-03-11T19:57:01","slug":"modi-cement-vs-kuchil-kumar-nandi-1998-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/banking-and-insurance-law\/modi-cement-vs-kuchil-kumar-nandi-1998-case-summary\/","title":{"rendered":"Modi Cement v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi 1998 (Case Summary)\u200b"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-post\" data-elementor-id=\"4903\" class=\"elementor elementor-4903\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-top-section elementor-element elementor-element-917020f elementor-section-full_width elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"917020f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-top-column elementor-element elementor-element-5aa9190\" data-id=\"5aa9190\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<section class=\"elementor-section elementor-inner-section elementor-element elementor-element-0360c7f elementor-section-boxed elementor-section-height-default elementor-section-height-default wpr-particle-no wpr-jarallax-no wpr-parallax-no wpr-sticky-section-no wpr-equal-height-no\" data-id=\"0360c7f\" data-element_type=\"section\" data-e-type=\"section\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-container elementor-column-gap-default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-column elementor-col-100 elementor-inner-column elementor-element elementor-element-f71d46a\" data-id=\"f71d46a\" data-element_type=\"column\" data-e-type=\"column\">\n\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-wrap elementor-element-populated\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-d818b36 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"d818b36\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h1 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\">Modi Cement v.  Kuchil Kumar Nandi 1998 (Case Summary)<\/h1>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e246dd3 elementor-widget elementor-widget-image\" data-id=\"e246dd3\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"image.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<img fetchpriority=\"high\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"1276\" height=\"592\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screenshot-2025-02-18-203528.png\" class=\"attachment-1536x1536 size-1536x1536 wp-image-4906\" alt=\"Modi Cement vs Kuchil Kumar Nandi 1998 (3) SCC 249\" srcset=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screenshot-2025-02-18-203528.png 1276w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screenshot-2025-02-18-203528-300x139.png 300w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screenshot-2025-02-18-203528-1024x475.png 1024w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screenshot-2025-02-18-203528-150x70.png 150w, https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Screenshot-2025-02-18-203528-768x356.png 768w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1276px) 100vw, 1276px\" title=\"\">\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-0d9ee86 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"0d9ee86\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In this landmark case, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court decided on the maintainability of Criminal Complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. The court interpreted whether the remark <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&#8220;payment stopped by the drawer&#8221;<\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> by the Bank, while returning the Cheque unpaid to the payee will come under the ambit of <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201cDishonour of cheque\u201d <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">and can the Drawer of the Cheque can be prosecuted under section 138 of the Act. <\/span><\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 ez-toc-wrap-left counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-custom ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #000000;color:#000000\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/banking-and-insurance-law\/modi-cement-vs-kuchil-kumar-nandi-1998-case-summary\/#Facts_of_Modi_Cement_v_Kuchil_Kumar_Nandi\" >Facts of Modi Cement v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/banking-and-insurance-law\/modi-cement-vs-kuchil-kumar-nandi-1998-case-summary\/#Issues_framed\" >Issues framed<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/banking-and-insurance-law\/modi-cement-vs-kuchil-kumar-nandi-1998-case-summary\/#Subordinate_Court_Judgment\" >Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/banking-and-insurance-law\/modi-cement-vs-kuchil-kumar-nandi-1998-case-summary\/#Judgment_of_Modi_Cement_v_Kuchil_Kumar_Nandi\" >Judgment of Modi Cement v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi\u00a0\u00a0<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/banking-and-insurance-law\/modi-cement-vs-kuchil-kumar-nandi-1998-case-summary\/#Read_the_Judgment_Below\" >Read the Judgment Below<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts_of_Modi_Cement_v_Kuchil_Kumar_Nandi\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Facts of Modi Cement v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Appellant company is a public limited company doing business of manufacturing and selling cement under the name of \u201cModi Cement\u201d\u00a0 throughout India.\u00a0<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Respondent\/Accused is the Sole proprietor of multiple business concerns like \u201cDubey Constructions\u201d &amp; \u201cNandi Constructions\u201d etc.\u00a0<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Appellant alleged that the Respondent\/Accused purchased Modi cement on credit. After taking Accounts, the total liability on Respondent was Rs. 1,10,53,520\/- towards the cement supplied by the Appellant.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">In partial discharge of the said liability, the Respondent issued three cheques of Rs. 2,00,000\/- each.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Appellant presented the said cheques in the bank for encashment but <\/span><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">the Banker of the Respondent returned the said cheques as unpaid with an endorsements &#8220;payment stopped by the drawer&#8221;. It was discovered, the Bank was instructed by the Respondent to stop the payment of the said cheques.<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Appellant sent a Legal Notice demanding in compliance of the provisions of the Act, which were ignored by the Respondent. Consequently, the Appellant filed three criminal complaints under section 138 of the Act against the Respondent.\u00a0<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Respondent thereafter, filed a petition under section 482 of the Cr.PC in the High Court of Calcutta seeking quashing of the above-mentioned criminal complaints filed by the Appellant.<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Issues_framed\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Issues framed<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><ol><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the Remark <\/span><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">&#8220;payment stopped by the drawer&#8221; <\/span><\/i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">can be considered as Dishonour as per section 138 of the Act?<\/span><\/li><li style=\"font-weight: 400;\" aria-level=\"1\"><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Whether the Drawer who stops the payment of the cheque, can be prosecuted and tried under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act?<\/span><\/li><\/ol><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Subordinate_Court_Judgment\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Subordinate Court Judgment\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The High Court of Calcutta allowed the petitions filed by the Respondent seeking Quashing of the Criminal Complaints filed by the Appellants. The court held analysing the provisions of the Act, held that the complainant has not pleaded in the complaint that the cheques were returned by the bank due to insufficient balance.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">It was further held that mere endorsement of the Bank \u201cPayment Stopped\u201d was not sufficient to entertain the criminal complaints for Dishonour of cheque. Therefore, the criminal complaints against the Respondent were quashed.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Complainant, being aggrieved by the High Court&#8217;s order Appealed to the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court of India. <\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judgment_of_Modi_Cement_v_Kuchil_Kumar_Nandi\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><b>Judgment of Modi Cement v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi\u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court analysed the scope of section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and also put light on other relevant provisions involved in a cheque Dishonour case such as Section 139, 142 of the Act.<\/span><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">The court allowed the Appeal, while quashing and setting aside the order of the High Court, it was held that:\u00a0<\/span><\/p><p><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">\u201c<\/span><\/i><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">21. It is needless to emphasize that the Court taking cognizance of the complaint under <\/span><\/i><a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1823824\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Section 138<\/span><\/i><\/a><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> of the Act is required to be satisfied as to whether a prima facie case is made out under the said provision. The drawer of the cheque undoubtedly gets an opportunity under <\/span><\/i><a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/268919\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\"><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Section 139<\/span><\/i><\/a><i><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\"> of the Act to rebut the presumption at the trial. It is for this reason we are of the considered opinion that the complaints of the appellant could not have been dismissed by the High Court at the threshold.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/p><p><span style=\"font-weight: 400;\">Finally, the order of the High Court was set aside by the Supreme Court and restoration of the Criminal complaint was ordered. This judgment answered the crucial question of interpretation and held that a criminal complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can sustain even if the cheque is returned by the Bank with endorsements as \u201cPayment Stopped\u201d.<\/span><\/p><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Read_the_Judgment_Below\"><\/span><span style=\"color: #993300;\"><strong>Read the Judgment Below<\/strong><\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-ad13ebd elementor-widget elementor-widget-pdfjs-viewer\" data-id=\"ad13ebd\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"pdfjs-viewer.default\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-widget-container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<iframe width=\"\" height=\"700\" src=\"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/plugins\/pdfjs-viewer-for-elementor\/\/assets\/js\/pdfjs\/web\/viewer.html?file=https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/Modi-Cement-vs-Kuchil-Kumar-Nandi-1.pdf\"><\/iframe>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/section>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In this landmark case, the Hon\u2019ble Supreme Court decided on the maintainability of Criminal Complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881. The court interpreted whether the remark &#8220;payment stopped by the drawer&#8221; by the Bank,<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":4906,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[116],"tags":[119,117,118,12],"class_list":["post-4903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-banking-and-insurance-law","tag-dishonour-cheque","tag-negotiable-instruments-act-1881","tag-section-138-ni-act-1881","tag-supreme-court"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4903","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4903"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4903\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4956,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4903\/revisions\/4956"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4906"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fawyerz.in\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}