Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Smt. Mareddy Seetharathnam vs Siruvuri Venkatarama Raju And Another on 17 October, 2016 Author: B

dispute his signature on the cheque, and took various inconsistent defences one of which was that 'the transaction was not with the complainant

lent the amount to the Accused in the year 2010. 29. These inconsistent claims in the evidence of the Complainant as well ... that though the Accused is permitted to take any number of inconsistent defences, the Complainant is not permitted to do so. Similarly

service of the legal notice and he has taken three inconsistent defences and he has failed to examine his father-in-law or mother

lent the amount to the Accused in the year 2010. 30. These inconsistent claims in the evidence of the Complainant as well ... that though the Accused is permitted to take any number of inconsistent defences, the Complainant is not permitted to do so. Similarly

service of the legal notice and he has taken three inconsistent defences and he has failed to examine his father-in-law or mother

State By; vs Ganganna @ Gangadhara @ Paapi on 27 August, 2016 IN THE COURT OF THE

issued the cheque in question in July 2014, by taking inconsistent defences, the Accused has failed to probabilise her defence and thereby she has failed

accused in his defence is entitled to take conflicting, contradicting and inconsistent defences. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that

accused in his defence is entitled to take conflicting, contradicting and inconsistent defences. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant that