Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 669 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing T. Nagappa vs Y.R. Muralidhar on 24 April, 2008

Shashikant Shamaldas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 24 June, 2022

11. The decision rendered in Kalyani Baskar v. M.S. Sampoornam (supra) was followed in the case of T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar (supra). In the present case, in his complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, the complainant has stated that the accused had given him the disputed cheque with his signature on it and had informed him that if the cheque is deposited on the date so mentioned, he would receive the amount mentioned in the cheque. As per the complainant, after depositing the said cheque on 15.11.2018, the same got returned owing to the account being closed. Thus, after legal notice, the complaint was filed. The facts in Page 9 of 11 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 27 22:09:35 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/11178/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2022 the complaint suggest that the signed cheque was handed over but the facts in the complaint also suggests that he was informed that the complainant would receive the amount so mentioned in the cheque. While it is the case of the complainant that it was a cheque that was signed "in blank"
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G Gopi - Full Document

Yasiv@Yasir Zaidi vs Man Mohan Arora on 24 March, 2026

No such statement has been made by the bank official in his examination before the learned MM. Further in the case of P.R. Ramakrishnan (Supra), the Madras High Court had allowed the petition for verification of signatures on cheque on the facts of that case, as the reasons given by the trial Court for dismissing the application of the petitioner for verification of the signature, was delay in filing of the application, which was not considered justified. The learned MM in the present case has given sufficient and cogent reasons for dismissing the application of the petitioner.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

Rajesh Rana vs Parmod Kumar on 13 June, 2022

In my opinion, the judgment in T. Nagappa's case (supra) lays down the law more elaborately and accurately than the judgments in Bir Singh's case (supra), which only reiterate the position of law that the 30 of 31 ::: Downloaded on - 15-06-2022 20:28:35 ::: CRM-M-45064-2019(O&M) -31- signatory of the cheque need not filled in the body of the cheque for the cheque to be a valid cheque.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - J S Bedi - Full Document

Smt. Neelam Devi vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 22 May, 2015

moved an application for sending the said documents to the handwriting expert for his opinion. The Ld. Trial Court rejected the said application. Revision petition against the said order was dismissed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge. In a challenge to the said order, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held, " 18. Moreover, as observed by the Hon. Apex Court, in the case of T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar (supra), what should be the nature of the evidence of the petitioner / accused should be left open to him, and accused knows how to prove his defence and ordinarily accused should be allowed to approach the Court for obtaining its assistance with regard to summoning of witnesses etc. In the instant case, since the accused preferred application Exhibit 48, requesting to send the documents at Exhibits 29/1 and 29/2, bearing disputed handwriting of the complainant, along with the admitted handwriting of the complainant, for obtaining handwriting expert's opinion, in fact, which should have been allowed by the learned trial court or, at least, by the learned Sessions Court, in the revision, to meet the ends of justice. However, simultaneously, there is no doubt that the accused should not be permitted to protract the trial unnecessarily. Hence, the apprehension posed by the respondent no.1, in respect of protracting the trial by the accused, can be met with by giving specific directions to the handwriting expert to submit the expert's opinion within stipulated period and thereby, endeavor can be made to achieve the spirit of Section 143, Sub- Sections 2 and 3, of the Negotiable Instruments Act." (emphasis supplied) The Hon'ble High Court further held, " 23. In the result, present Petition is allowed, and the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Court No.6, Latur, below Exhibit 48, in S.T.C. No. 1734/2009, dated 11th June 2010, and also the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Criminal Revision No. 114/2010, dated 7th January 2011, stand quashed and set aside, and the application Exhibit 48, dated 13-4-2010, preferred by the petitioner / accused, in S.T.C. No. 1734/2009, stands allowed to the extent of prayer clause 1 thereof, and it is directed that the document No.1 below Exhibit 29 i.e. "chit of transaction", and document No.2 below Exhibit 29 i.e. "diary of the Crl.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramprasad Krishnaji Khandelwal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 6 October, 2017

11 The ratio laid down in the case of T. Nagappa Vs. Y. R. ::: Uploaded on - 07/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/10/2017 01:58:42 ::: 9 948 CRI.WRIT PETITION 205 OF 2006.odt Murlidhar (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The revision before the Sessions Court is maintainable. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly quashed and set aside the order of the Magistrate. I do not find any substance in this writ petition. Hence, the following order:
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V K Jadhav - Full Document

M/S.Decon Construction vs J.A.Stephen on 3 December, 2010

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in T.Nagappa's case has categorically held that right to defend is a fundamental right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the right to defend oneself and for that purpose, adduce evidence is recognised by the Parliament, as per sub-section (2) of Section 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, no one can adopt delay tactics or abuse the process of law or the court under the guise of reasonable opportunity.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next