The Supreme Court in M/s. Kalamani Tex & Anr. Vs. P. Balasubramanian, dated 10.02.2021, held that “Even if we take the arguments raised by the appellants at face value that only a blank cheque and signed blank stamp papers were given to the respondent, yet the statutory presumption cannot be obliterated. It is useful to cite Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197, where this court held that:

“Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt.” Considering the fact that there has been an admitted business relationship   between   the   parties,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   the defense raised by the appellants does not inspire confidence or meet the standard of ‘preponderance of probability’. In the absence of any other relevant material, it appears to us that the High Court did not err   in   discarding   the   appellants’   defence   and   upholding   the   onus imposed upon them in terms of Section 118 and Section 139 of the NIA. As regard to the claim of compensation raised on behalf of the respondent, we are conscious of the settled principles that the object of Chapter XVII of the NIA is not only punitive but also compensatory and restitutive. The provisions of NIA envision a single window for criminal liability for dishonour of cheque as well as civil liability for realization of the cheque amount. It is also well settled that there needs to be a consistent approach towards awarding compensation and   unless   there   exist   special   circumstances, the   Courts   should uniformly levy fine up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum.”