Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Smt.Pushpa Devi vs Smt. Sushila on 14 May, 2018

Manjeet Singh vs Suraj Vij on 8 March, 2022

Per contra, Ld. Defence counsel raised several questions with respect to the existence of legal liability in the present case and challenged the complaint on multiple counts i.e. the financial capacity of the complainant to advance the alleged loan amount AISHWARYA Digitally signed by AISHWARYA SINGH KASHYAP SINGH KASHYAP Date: 2022.03.09 01:52:27 +05'30' 4 of 13 Manjeet Singh vs Suraj Vij CC 2185/2017 to the accused (reliance placed on K.Parkashan vs P K Surendran 2007 (4) RCR (Cr) 588 SC); failure of the complainant to mention the details of the date on which the loan was allegedly advanced (reliance placed on John K Abrahim vs Simon 2013 (9) LRC 23 SC); questioning the significant cash transaction despite legal mandate (reliance placed on Reliance on Pushpa Devi vs Sushila (2018) (3) LRC 466 Delhi; Mahesh Chand Sharma vs Hari Chander @ Hariya 2018 (4) CC Cases (HC) 157 Delhi; Krishna Janardan vs Datta Tarya 2008 (1) RCR (Cr.)
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ramesh Kumar Saini vs Sobha Ram on 22 March, 2022

Reliance on Kulvinder Singh vs Kafeel Ahmed DHC; Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa MANU/SC/0502/2019, K Parkashan vs P K Surendran 2007 (4) RCR (Cr) 588 SC (financial capacity); John K Abrahim vs Simon 2013 (9) LRC 23 SC (details of date on which loan alleged not mentioned); Pushpa Devi vs Sushila (2018) (3) LRC 466 Delhi; Mahesh Chand Sharma vs Hari Chander @ Hariya 2018 (4) CC Cases (HC) 157 Delhi; Krishna Janardan vs Datta Tarya 2008 (1) RCR (Cr) 695 SC (huge cash transactions); and Vipul Kr Gupta vs Vipin Gupta (V) AD (Cr) (DHC) 189; Sneh Jain vs Vijay Kalra (209) (2014) DLT 503; S K Jain vs Vijay Kalra (2014) (3) LRC 352 Delhi. The matter was reserved for judgement after hearing rival submissions on both sides.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Chanchal vs Ms. Geeta Singh on 17 March, 2023

No advantage can be drawn from Pushpa Devi (supra) as therein the trial court had acquitted the respondent on the ground that the cheques were not filled by the respondent as she only knew how to sign and also because, no CA No.161/2022 Chanchal Vs. Geeta Singh Page 15 of 18 document was prepared regarding the transaction and there was no witness to handing over of the money to the respondent or issuance of cheque by her. Here, the part transaction is through online bank transfer which fact could not be rebutted. The accused herein, on one hand, denied any transaction with complainant and on the other, could not offer any explanation as to how there was online transfer of substantial money in his own account from the bank of complainant.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next