SC: Cash Transactions Above ₹20,000 Do Not Make Debt Unenforceable Under Section 138 NI Act

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

• 
  Minority Cannot Substitute Proof of Occurrence in Rape Cases: J&K and Ladakh High Court
  Shivaji Rathore 14-Dec-2025 Jammu,  The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has ruled that where the prosecution fails to prove the very occurrence of the alleged crime through clear, cogent and uncontradictory evidence, the minority of the alleged victim cannot be invoked as a fallback to sustain conviction. While reiterating the settled legal position that consent of a minor is legally irrelevant in rape prosecutions, the Court clarified that such a principle becomes applicable only after the prosecution first establishes that the alleged sexual offence actually occurred. Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani made these significant observations while allowing a… Read more: Minority Cannot Substitute Proof of Occurrence in Rape Cases: J&K and Ladakh High Court
• 
  Compassionate Appointment Cannot Become a Claim for Higher Post: Supreme Court
  Shivaji Rathore 13-Dec-2025 The Supreme Court on Friday (December 12) held that a person who has accepted a compassionate appointment cannot subsequently seek elevation by claiming that he ought to have been appointed to a higher post at the initial stage.The Court reiterated that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal recruitment process, carved out only to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee. Once an applicant accepts the post offered under the applicable compassionate appointment scheme, the appointment attains finality and the appointee is bound by the terms of the scheme. A Bench comprising… Read more: Compassionate Appointment Cannot Become a Claim for Higher Post: Supreme Court
• 
  Supreme Court Issues Exhaustive Guidelines to Streamline 138 NI Act Cases: Mandatory Synopsis, Online Payment, No Pre – Cognizance Summons & More
  Synopsis required for every 138 case filing, Landmark Judgment Shivaji Rathore 12 -Dec-2025 In a landmark ruling aimed at speeding up cheque bounce litigation, the Supreme Court has issued a comprehensive set of directions governing the procedure, trial, settlement, and compounding of Section 138 NI Act cases. These directions significantly modify earlier judicial positions (including overruling Nalinakshan vs. M. Rameshan, 2009 All MR (Cri) Journal 273) and introduce new procedural reforms applicable across India. These guidelines will now bind all Magistrates and District Courts handling cheque dishonour matters. 1. Mandatory Affidavit of Service – False Affidavit Actionable The Court held… Read more: Supreme Court Issues Exhaustive Guidelines to Streamline 138 NI Act Cases: Mandatory Synopsis, Online Payment, No Pre – Cognizance Summons & More
• 
  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Reiterates: Revenue Authorities Cannot Proceed When Civil Court is Already Seized of the Dispute
  Shivaji Rathore 12-Dec-2025 In a significant ruling reinforcing judicial discipline between parallel forums, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that revenue authorities must step aside once a civil court has assumed jurisdiction over a property dispute. The judgment came in a Kupwara land-pathway matter, where both parties had simultaneously approached different forums, leading to what the Court termed a classic case of “parallel adjudicatory tracks”. Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal, while dismissing the writ petition filed by Farooq Ahmad Sheikh and others, emphasised that the primacy of the civil court cannot be diluted by allowing revenue… Read more: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Reiterates: Revenue Authorities Cannot Proceed When Civil Court is Already Seized of the Dispute
• 
  SC: Cash Transactions Above ₹20,000 Do Not Make Debt Unenforceable Under Section 138 NI Act
  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… Read more: SC: Cash Transactions Above ₹20,000 Do Not Make Debt Unenforceable Under Section 138 NI Act
• 
  Bombay High Court Reiterates: Compliance With Section 138 NI Act Is Mandatory, Mere Filing of Complaint Not Sufficient
  Introduction In a recent judgment delivered on 29 July 2025, the Bombay High Court once again emphasized the mandatory nature of the procedural requirements under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court examined whether the complainant had duly complied with the statutory pre-conditions, especially those relating to service of demand notice and cause of action, before initiating prosecution for cheque dishonour. The case titled Sou. Usha  Rashmi Ramesh Bhadre v. Raviraj Yuvraj Chavan & State of Maharashtra involved a challenge filed by the complainant under Article 226 of the Constitution, questioning the Magistrate’s decision on the issue… Read more: <br>Bombay High Court Reiterates: Compliance With Section 138 NI Act Is Mandatory, Mere Filing of Complaint Not Sufficient
• 
  Supreme Court: Dying Declaration Not Invalid Merely Because Death Was Not Imminent
  Court Holds That Time Gap Between Statement and Death Does Not Affect Its Admissibility Under Section 32 Evidence Act 07-Dec-2025 In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has held that a victim’s statement cannot be discarded as a dying declaration merely because death was not imminent or because there was a time gap between the statement and the eventual death. The Court restored summons issued to the deceased woman’s in-laws in a shooting case, reiterating that the law under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act does not require the declarant to be under expectation of death. A Bench of Justices… Read more: Supreme Court: Dying Declaration Not Invalid Merely Because Death Was Not Imminent
• 
  Temple Money Belongs to the Deity, Cannot Be Used to Sustain Cooperative Banks: Supreme Court
  Supreme Court Upholds Kerala High Court Order Directing Return of Thirunelly Temple Deposits 06-Dec-2025 The Supreme Court on Friday reaffirmed the legal principle that temple funds constitute the property of the deity and must be safeguarded exclusively for temple purposes. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed petitions filed by cooperative banks in Kerala that sought to retain fixed deposits belonging to the historic Thirunelly Temple Devaswom. The cooperative banks had challenged the Kerala High Court’s direction to return the deposits within two months. However, the Supreme Court found no error in the… Read more: Temple Money Belongs to the Deity, Cannot Be Used to Sustain Cooperative Banks: Supreme Court
• 
  Supreme Court: Taking Photos or Videos of a Woman Without Consent Is Not Voyeurism Unless It Captures a “Private Act”
  Top Court Clarifies Scope of Section 354C IPC on Voyeurism 04-Dec-2025 The Supreme Court has clarified that merely clicking photographs or recording videos of a woman without her consent does not automatically amount to the offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the act must involve capturing a woman engaged in a “private act” such as exposure of intimate parts, using a lavatory, or any sexual act where she would reasonably expect privacy. A Bench of Justices N. Kotiswar Singh and Manmohan upheld the Calcutta High Court’s decision discharging the accused, observing… Read more: Supreme Court: Taking Photos or Videos of a Woman Without Consent Is Not Voyeurism Unless It Captures a “Private Act”
• 
  Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Convictions; Pulls Up Public Prosecutors For Failing in Their Duty
  Bench Flags Serious Procedural Lapses in Accused’s Section 313 CrPC Examination 03-Dec-2025 In a significant judgment delivered on Monday (December 1), the Supreme Court of India set aside the murder convictions of three individuals after finding glaring procedural lapses during their trial. The Court strongly criticised the conduct of the Public Prosecutor, noting that prosecutors must act independently in the interest of justice and not behave like defence lawyers for the State seeking conviction at any cost. The bench comprising Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh held that the accused were not confronted with all the material allegations during… Read more: Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Convictions; Pulls Up Public Prosecutors For Failing in Their Duty
• 
  Supreme Court Affirms Divorced Muslim Woman’s Right to Recover Cash and Gold Given at Marriage
  Landmark Ruling Strengthens Financial Rights of Divorced Muslim Women Under the 1986 Act 03-Dec-2025 In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on December 2 affirmed that a divorced Muslim woman is legally entitled to recover cash and gold ornaments that her husband received from her father at the time of marriage. The Court clarified that such property falls within the protection granted under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986. Setting aside the Calcutta High Court’s contrary view, the Bench held that courts must adopt an interpretation that upholds dignity, equality, and the financial… Read more: Supreme Court Affirms Divorced Muslim Woman’s Right to Recover Cash and Gold Given at Marriage
• 
  Chhattisgarh High Court Allows 21-Week Pregnancy Termination for Minor Rape Survivor, Upholds Bodily Autonomy
  Court Reaffirms Right to Bodily Integrity and Personal Liberty Under Article 21 30-Nov-2025 Tacit Legal The Chhattisgarh High Court has permitted a minor rape survivor to medically terminate her 21-week pregnancy. The Court held that forcing her to continue the unwanted pregnancy would violate her right to bodily integrity, intensify her psychological trauma, and seriously affect her physical and mental well-being. Relying on the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Suchita Srivastava & Anr. v. Chandigarh Administration (2009), the Court reiterated that reproductive choice forms an inseparable part of a woman’s personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Parth… Read more: Chhattisgarh High Court Allows 21-Week Pregnancy Termination for Minor Rape Survivor, Upholds Bodily Autonomy
• 
  J&K&L High Court Clarifies Law on Test Identification Parade: Dock Identification Is the Substantive Evidence
  Understanding the Evidentiary Value of TIP and Dock Identification 29-Nov-2025 TACIT LEGAL The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that Test Identification Parade (TIP), though a valuable investigative tool, is not mandatory, nor is it the substantive evidence of identity. The Court clarified that dock identification the identification of an accused made by a witness in the courtroom constitutes substantive evidence, whereas TIP is merely corroborative. A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekhri emphasised that courts may, in appropriate circumstances, rely solely on dock identification even in the absence of a prior… Read more: J&K&L High Court Clarifies Law on Test Identification Parade: Dock Identification Is the Substantive Evidence
• 
  Supreme Court Clarifies Territorial Jurisdiction for Cheque-Bounce Cases under Section 138 NI Act
  29-Nov-2025 TACIT LEGAL The Supreme Court has clarified that Section 138 NI Act complaints must be filed only before the court within whose jurisdiction the payee maintains their bank account. The ruling reiterates that after the 2015 Amendment, the law is explicit: for account-payee cheques, the place where the cheque is deposited or presented does not determine jurisdiction. A Bench led by the Supreme Court held that Section 142(2)(a) creates a mandatory rule the payee’s home-branch is the sole decisive factor for territorial jurisdiction in cheque dishonour cases. The Court further noted that this statutory mandate overrides general CrPC provisions… Read more: Supreme Court Clarifies Territorial Jurisdiction for Cheque-Bounce Cases under Section 138 NI Act
• 
  Even half century Delay Cannot Defeat Landowners right to compensation
  Karanataka High Court 29- Nov-2025 Tacit Legal Introduction In a significant ruling reinforcing constitutional protection of private property, the Karnataka High Court has held that delay even extending over 65 years cannot extinguish a landowner’s right to just compensation when the State admits that it has taken over private land without following due legal process. Why This Judgment Matters Reaffirms Article 300A: State cannot take private land without authority of law. Clarifies that delay or silence by landowners does not validate illegal State possession. Compensation is mandatory where land is taken without acquisition under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act. Sets… Read more: Even half century Delay Cannot Defeat Landowners right to compensation