Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.64 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Bhagava vs Sri Kadasiddeshwara Trading Company ... on 1 December, 2003

Anil Das Bairagi vs Smt. Nidhi Jain on 20 August, 2019

In this regard, he placed reliance on judgment passed by the Karnataka High Court in Bhagava v. Sri Kadasiddeshwara Trading Company and others reported in ILR 2004 Karnataka 367 in that case the court held that The person who claims as legal hair of the payee cannot be termed as holder in due course in the strict sense, but in the opinion of this court, on the death of the payee, his legal heir steps into the shoes of the payee for all practical purposes and such a person can also file and prosecute the complaint after completing the legal formalities. It is all necessary to mention that it would be incumbent upon the complainant to prove that the complainant is the legal representative of the deceased payee, in the event of accused disputing the same.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - R K Dubey - Full Document

Vishnupant S/O Chaburao Khaire vs Kailash S/O Balbhir Madan on 25 January, 2010

21. Another case cited by Advocate Shri Deshpande for respondent is of Single Bench of Kerala High Court Smt. Bhagava vs. M.s Sri Kadasiddeshwara ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:33:04 ::: 15 Trading Company and another 2004 (1) Crimes 701. In the said case, payee had died before presenting cheque for encashment and the cheque was therefore presented by his wife and on bouncing of the cheque, after completing formalities, she had filed complaint. In the facts of the said case, it is held therein that on death of payee, his legal heirs stepped into shoe of payee for all practical purposes and such legal heir could also file and prosecute complaint and the impugned order dismissing the complaint was set aside.
Bombay High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - P R Borkar - Full Document

Jyotindra Motibhai Thakkar vs State Of Gujarat & on 28 April, 2017

5.6 When the Karnataka High Court in Smt.Bagva (supra) takes a view that an undisputed heir of the payee steps into the shoe of the payee to be competent to become a complainant under Section 138 of the Act, this Court is in respectful disagreement with such proposition. It ignores the provisions of Section 9 read with Section 142 of the Act, and in other words disregards the position evident therefrom that only a person having a capacity of holder in due course in eye of law is competent to maintain a complaint. The cognizance of complaint filed by the payee or holder in due course only is permissible in law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - N V Anjaria - Full Document
1