Please take a moment to read this short note. In brief: this website is for general information only, you are here of your own choice, and nothing on it is an advertisement or a solicitation of work.
As per the rules of the Bar Council of India, advocates are not permitted to solicit work or advertise.
By clicking "I Agree" below, the user acknowledges and confirms the following:
1. There has been no advertisement, personal communication, solicitation, invitation, or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Adv. Suryanarayan M. Nadar or any of his associates to solicit any work through this website.
2. The purpose of this website is to provide the user with information about Adv. Suryanarayan M. Nadar, his qualifications and areas of practice, for the user's own information and use, provided entirely at the user's own request.
3. The information provided on this website is solely available at the user's request for informational purposes only. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.
4. The information contained herein does not constitute legal advice. It is not intended to create, and the receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship.
5. In cases where the user has any legal issues, they must seek independent legal advice from qualified legal practitioners.
6. This website is designed and maintained in compliance with the rules and regulations prescribed under the Advocates Act, 1961 and the Bar Council of India Rules (Part VI, Chapter II).
7. The contents of this website are the intellectual property of Adv. Suryanarayan M. Nadar.
By clicking "I Agree," you acknowledge that you wish to gain more information about Adv. Suryanarayan M. Nadar at your own accord and that there has been no form of solicitation.
The notes below summarise, for general information only, how some recurring defences in cheque-dishonour matters are treated under settled law. They do not describe any particular case, party or outcome, are not legal advice, and do not represent that any similar result will follow in any matter.
The question whether delay by the drawer in paying, or the mere passage of time, weakens a complaint that is itself filed within the statutory periods.
The statutory timeline binds the complainant — not the drawer's delay in paying.
The question whether a cheque described as having been given only as "security" is, for that reason, outside Section 138.
Following Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand (2021), an unpaid security cheque is enforceable.
The question whether a bare assertion that the cheque was stolen or misused, unsupported by proof, displaces the presumption under Section 139.
The presumption under Section 139 operates until displaced by cogent evidence.
A common question is whether a cheque bearing a future date can attract Section 138 at all.
The liability under a post-dated cheque crystallises when it becomes payable and is returned unpaid.
Where the drawer admits that the signature on the cheque is genuine, the effect on the burden of proof is often misunderstood.
The presumption is rebuttable, but the accused must do more than merely deny liability.
A drawer sometimes argues that the cheque was handed over blank or only partly filled in.
Voluntary delivery of a signed cheque carries consequences, whatever blanks it may have contained.
Disclaimer: The notes above are general and simplified, for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal advice, do not refer to any identifiable party or matter, and are not a representation or guarantee of any particular outcome. Every matter turns on its own facts.