Supreme Court Sets Aside Kerala HC View Declaring Cash Loans Above ₹20,000 as “Not Legally Enforceable Debt
Shivaji Rathore, 11 Dec 2025,
The Supreme Court has recently clarified an important question in cheque dishonour jurisprudence: Does a cash loan exceeding ₹20,000 taken in violation of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act become an “unenforceable debt” under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act? The answer, as per the Supreme Court, is a clear NO.
In a significant order, a Bench of Justices P.K. Mishra and Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the Kerala High Court’s controversial judgment in PC Hari v. Shine Varghese, which had held that any debt arising from a cash transaction above ₹20,000 is not legally enforceable unless the lender gives a “valid explanation”. The Court relied on its co-ordinate Bench ruling in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore Borcar, which had already declared the Kerala High Court’s view to be erroneous.
The matter now stands remitted back to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits, strictly within its revisional jurisdiction. Key Holding: Violation of Section 269SS Does Not Void the Debt In Sanjabij Tari, the Supreme Court dealt with a cheque bounce case involving a cash loan of ₹6,00,000/-. The Bombay High Court had acquitted the accused on the ground that the loan was paid in cash, violating Section 269SS IT Act. Setting aside that view, the Supreme Court categorically held: Breach of Section 269SS only attracts a monetary penalty under Section 271D of the IT Act. Such transactions are not illegal, void, or unenforceable.
The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act remain intact. Cash loans above ₹20,000 can still form the basis of a legally enforceable debt. The Court expressly rejected the Kerala High Court’s view in PC Hari, observing:
“Violation of Section 269SS would not render the transaction unenforceable under Section 138 NI Act or rebut the statutory presumptions… A transaction above ₹20,000 is not void merely because it is in cash.”
Kerala High Court’s Position in PC Hari v. Shine Varghese : In the impugned judgment, the Kerala High Court had taken the view that: Cash payments above ₹20,000 are prohibited under Section 269SS. Unless there is a “valid explanation” under Section 273B,
criminal courts cannot entertain Section 138 complaints based on such transactions.
The High Court even remarked:
“If anybody pays an amount in excess of 20,000 by cash… he must take responsibility to get it back. The doors of the criminal court will be closed for such illegal transactions.”
Using this reasoning, the High Court had set aside the conviction recorded by the Magistrate and affirmed by the Sessions Court. Supreme Court’s Correction: No Extinguishment of Civil or Criminal Liability The complainant successfully argued before the Supreme Court that:
Section 269SS restricts the mode of accepting money, not the lending of money. The provision does not nullify the underlying debt. The only consequence of violation is a penalty, not invalidation of the transaction. Interpreting it otherwise would: lead to double jeopardy, and distort the harmonious construction of the IT Act and NI Act. The Court accepted these submissions, noting that several High Courts had conflicting views, making a clear pronouncement necessary.
Background of the Case
According to the complainant: A cash amount of ₹9,00,000 was advanced to the accused. The accused issued a cheque for the same. The cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The Magistrate convicted the accused after full trial. The Sessions Court confirmed the conviction. The accused approached the Kerala High Court, which acquitted him relying entirely on the reasoning under Section 269SS IT Act. The complainant challenged this before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Final Direction
The Kerala High Court judgment in PC Hari is set aside.
The matter is remitted back for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Court reaffirmed the legal position laid down in Sanjabij Tari that:
Cash transactions above ₹20,000 are not void,
Statutory NI Act presumptions cannot be defeated, and
Section 269SS violations do not extinguish debt liability.
Case Title
Shine Varghese Koipurathu v. State of Kerala
Crl.A. No. 5385/2025
- Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance Liability Merely Because Wife Is Educated or Has Parental Support: Supreme Court
Shivaji Rathore 04-Feb-2026 In a significant reaffirmation of women’s right to live with dignity after divorce, the Supreme - Default in Filing Written Statement Does Not Mean Automatic Decree: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC01-Feb-2026 In a significant ruling reaffirming foundational principles of civil justice, the Supreme Court of India has held
- Allahabad High Court Mandates Prosecution for False FIRs: Police Officers Face Liability for Non-Compliance
Shivaji Rathore 30-01-2026 In a far-reaching and precedent-setting judgment, the Allahabad High Court has issued a strict mandamus - Supreme Court Keeps UGC Promotion of Equity Regulations, 2026 in Abeyance; Revives 2012 FrameworkShivaji Rathore 29-01-2026 The Supreme Court of India on Thursday ordered that the University Grants Commission (Promotion of
- Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Powers Under Section 175(4) BNSS in Cases Against Public ServantsShivaji Rathore, 28-01-2026 The Supreme Court laid down an authoritative interpretation of Section 175(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik
- Power of Magistrate to Monitor Investigation and Registration of FIRTACIT LEGAL 21-01-2026 One of the most common grievances faced by complainants in criminal law is the non-registration
- Pre-Cognizance Hearing Not Mandatory in Cheque Dishonour Cases: J&K High Court
Section 223 BNSS Inapplicable to Proceedings under Section 138 NI Act Tacit Legal 20 Jan 2025 In a - Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Constitutionality of Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption ActTop Court Divided on Whether Prior Government Approval for Corruption Investigations Is Constitutional Tacit Legal 13-Jan-2026 A two-judge
- Marrying Outside District Does Not Give Automatic Local Residence Benefit in Government Jobs: J&K High Court
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Reaffirms Proof-Based Local Residence in Public Recruitment Shivaji Rathore 12 jan - Magistrate Cannot Discharge Accused at Section 251 CrPC Stage in Summons Cases: Delhi High CourtOnce Cognizance Is Taken and Summons Issued, Magistrate Lacks Power to Recall Process, Rules Court Court Shivaji Rathore
- POCSO Trial Truncated Midway: Court Orders Release of Accused After DNA Mismatch and Victim’s Clear Exoneration
Sessions Court Holds Continuation of Trial a Futile Exercise Where Chances of Conviction Are Nil Shivaji Rathore 09-01-2026 - J&k cooperative housing society held to be a “Public Authority” under RTI
Shivaji Rathore 9-1-2026 In a significant ruling reinforcing transparency and accountability, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir - Bombay High court holds using old number plate on unregistered vehicle not cheating or forgery
Shivaji Rathore 08-01-2026 The Bombay High Court has ruled that driving an unregistered vehicle by affixing an old - Intention and knowledge||section 304 IPC | supreme court explain culpable homicide amounting to murder|Supreme Court Converts Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide, Citing Absence of Intention to Kill Shivaji Rathore 08-01-2025 The
- Supreme Court Reiterates Wide Powers of Magistrate to Ensure Proper Police InvestigationMonitoring of FIR under section 156(3) Shivaji Rathore 07-01-2026 The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment
