December 2025 - The Law Literates

13Dec, 2025

SC Holds Debt Arising from Cash Transaction Exceeding ₹20,000 (Violating IT Act) Can Still be ‘Legally Enforceable’ for Cheque Dishonour Cases

🏛️SUPREME COURT OF INDIA🏛️

SC Holds Debt Arising from Cash Transaction Exceeding ₹20,000 (Violating IT Act) Can Still be ‘Legally Enforceable’ for Cheque Dishonour Cases

Supreme Court recently set aside the Kerala High Court judgment in PC Hari v. Shine Varghese, which held that a debt created by a cash transaction above Rs.20,000 in violation of the Income Tax (IT) Act, 1961 cannot be considered as a “legally enforceable debt” under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act unless there is a valid explanation for the same.

For More read the Judgment click here

shine-varghese-v-state-of-kerala-s138-ni-act-cash-debt-exceeding-rs20000-cheque-dishonor-The Law Literates

9Dec, 2025

Section 86 Order VII Rule 11 CPC Limitation – Suit against foreign state – Sovereign immunity and limitation grounds raised

Section 86 Order VII Rule 11 CPC Limitation – Suit against foreign state – Sovereign immunity and limitation grounds raised – Held, suit not barred by limitation as recurring cause of action applies Doctrine of laches/limitation not applicable to periodic claims – Sovereign immunity plea not upheld at this stage Suit reinstated for trial on merits.[Paras 7, 24 to 25]

Relevant Paras:

7. Due to persistent inaction by the Respondents, the Appellants resorted to legal remedies. After protracted correspondence and a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, the Appellants obtained the consent mandated under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the Government of India by January 2013, enabling them to
institute civil proceedings against the foreign state For More please find the Judgment.

24. Lastly, learned counsel for the Respondents has also argued that the plaint was time barred and thus limitation is also a valid ground for rejection of plaint, although the learned Single judge, even while allowing his application, has rejected this ground. This Court concurs with the finding of the learned Single Judge that, prima facie, the present suit is not barred by limitation as the same is based on a recurring cause of action and that even if a part of the relief, i.e.,
payment of wages, sought in the plaint is barred by limitation, the Court can still exercise its discretion to mould the relief and grant recovery to the extent that is within limitation.

25. The Respondents counsel‟s reliance on Nikhila Dibyang Mehta & Anr. v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi & Ors.4 is misplaced, since it does not apply to a set of facts that give rise to a recurring cause of action and is only relevant to a „one time action‟. As has already been held in a catena of the Supreme Court judgments like MR Gupta v. Union of India5
, the doctrine of laches/limitation is not applicable where separate or distinct cause of action occurs periodically. Thus, the Respondents cannot be allowed to press this contention before this court.

Judgment Delhi High Court The Law Literates