Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 2082 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 December, 1991

Karan Passi vs Vikas Lakhanpal on 24 August, 2017

In  Indian Bank Association & Ors.  v.  Union of India   &   Ors.(supra),   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   has   also   been pleased to hold that after framing of notice under section 251 Cr.PC, the case is to be fixed for Defence Evidence unless an application is to be made by the accused under section 145(2) for recalling   a   witness   for   cross­examination.   Thereafter,   Hon'ble Supreme   Court   has   been   pleased   to   give   directions   regarding conclusion   of   examination,   cross­examination   and   re­ examination of the complainant within three months of assigning the case.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Tata Capital Financial vs Venugopal Swamy Tirunagari on 4 March, 2023

In the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union Of India & others (supra) - one of the direction is that the accused must lead evidence or cross examine the complainant when the date was fixed for the same and the case must be decided within three months from the date of filing, but the accused has kept himself absent and repeatedly adjournments are sought for cross examination by keeping the accused absent. Hence, the accused has failed to putforth any defense to rebut the presumption available in SCCH-12 15 C.C.No.6181/2021 favour of complainant under Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. The defense taken by the accused is not plausible defense to create a doubt in the mind of court that there are no such transactions between the complainant and accused. In such case, the presumption always lies in favour of complainant and the complainant has proved the legally recoverable debt. With these observations I am of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded to prove the ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act against the accused. Hence I have answered Point No.1 in the "Affirmative".
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Loanzen Finance Pvt. Ltd vs Sri.Lakshmipathi S.G on 6 September, 2022

In the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union Of India & others (supra) one of the direction is that the accused must lead evidence or cross examine the complainant when the date was fixed for the same and the case must be decided within three months from the date of filing, but the accused has kept himself absent and repeatedly SCCH-12 14 C.C.No.9948/2021 adjournments are sought for cross examination by keeping the accused absent. Hence, the accused has failed to putforth any defense to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainant under Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. The defense taken by the accused is not plausible defense to create a doubt in the mind of court that there are no such transactions between the complainant and accused. In such case, the presumption always lies in favour of complainant and the complainant has proved the legally recoverable debt. With these observations I am of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded to prove the ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act against the accused. Hence I have answered Point No.1 in the "Affirmative".
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd vs Sri. Muniraju.P on 11 January, 2023

In the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union Of India & others (supra) - one of the direction is that the accused must lead evidence or cross examine the complainant when the date was fixed for the same and the case must be decided within three months from the date of filing, but the accused has kept himself absent and repeatedly SCCH-12 15 C.C. No.7155/2021 adjournments are sought for cross examination by keeping the accused absent. Hence, the accused has failed to putforth any defense to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainant under Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. The defense taken by the accused is not plausible defense to create a doubt in the mind of court that there are no such transactions between the complainant and accused. In such case, the presumption always lies in favour of complainant and the complainant has proved the legally recoverable debt. With these observations I am of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded to prove the ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act against the accused. Hence I have answered Point No.1 in the "Affirmative".
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Tata Capital Financial Services vs Puneeth Kumar.N on 6 September, 2022

In the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union Of India & others (supra) one of the direction is that the accused must lead evidence or cross examine the complainant when the date was fixed for the same and the case must be decided within three months from the date of filing, but the accused has kept himself absent and repeatedly adjournments are sought for cross examination by keeping the accused absent. Hence, the accused has failed to putforth any defense to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainant under Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. The defense taken by the accused is not plausible defense to create a doubt in the mind of court that there are no such transactions between the complainant and accused. In such case, the presumption always lies in favour of complainant and the complainant has proved the legally recoverable debt. With these observations I am of the opinion that the SCCH-12 15 C.C.No.10368/2021 complainant has succeeded to prove the ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act against the accused. Hence I have answered Point No.1 in the "Affirmative".
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Yelahanka Merchants Finance vs Sri.Narasimha Murthy on 10 January, 2023

In the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union Of India & others (supra) one of the direction is that the accused must lead evidence or cross examine the complainant when the SCCH-12 14 C.C.No.1641/2021 date was fixed for the same and the case must be decided within three months from the date of filing, but the accused has kept himself absent and repeatedly adjournments are sought for cross examination by keeping the accused absent. Hence, the accused has failed to putforth any defense to rebut the presumption available in favour of complainant under Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act. The defense taken by the accused is not plausible defense to create a doubt in the mind of court that there are no such transactions between the complainant and accused. In such case, the presumption always lies in favour of complainant and the complainant has proved the legally recoverable debt. With these observations I am of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded to prove the ingredients of section 138 of N.I.Act against the accused. Hence I have answered Point No.1 in the "Affirmative".
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next