Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Suresh Kallappa Makavi S/O Kallappa ... vs Madan Bindurao Desai on 23 June, 2008

Gurmail Singh vs Simran Bhalla on 25 July, 2013

In the case of Suresh Kallappa Makavi versus Madan Bindurao cited as 2009 criminal Law Journal 224, it was held, "in case of a cheque signed by two persons having joint account, the complainant has an option to either proceed against both signatories or against one of the signatory of the cheque. He cannot be compelled to proceed against both". This is a case of Karnataka High Court.After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in light of the evidence brought on record, I am of the considered view that accused has been able to successfully rebutt the statutory presumption because the defence of accused during the whole trial has remained consistent and looks probable. Further, there are material contradictions in the testimony of Gurmail Singh vs Simran Bhalla Page 9 of 11 10 complainant. Counsel for accused has submitted that accused has proved her innocence on the scale of preponderance of probabilities.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alam Venkat Naidu vs Smt. Vandhana Nerella on 1 December, 2015

In support of his argument, he has relied upon the decisions reported in AIR 2014 SC 630 (A.C.Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra), AIR 2010 SC 1898 (Rangappa Vs. Mohan), 2001 AIR SCW 3861 (Hiten P.Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee), ILR 2008 Kar 3922 (Suresh Kallappa Makavi Vs Madan Bindurao Desai and Another), (2006) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 30 (M.S.Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs.State of Kerala and another), 2004 Cri.L.J. 3177( L. Mohan Vs. V.Mohan Naidu)
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Filed Complaint Against The Accused vs Had Availed Complainant'S Services For ... on 29 September, 2016

14. The decision relied upon by the complainant reported in ILR 2008 Kar. 3922 in the case of Suresh Kallappa Makavi vs. Madan Bindurao Desai & another, is also very much applicable to the case on hand wherein it is held, service of notice within the stipulated period, presentation of the complaint within stipulated period and signature on the acknowledgement of service of notice 14 SCCH.13 15 CC.44331/2010 makes out due compliance of provision as contemplated under Sec.138 of NI Act.
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Sara Apparels vs M/S Vaiking Fashions on 19 September, 2015

15. In the present case in hand also it is the contention of the Revision Petitioner that his wife has also signed the alleged cheque, so she is the necessary party. The complainant has not added her as an accused in this case. It is the case of complainant that the accused No.3 is not 12 Crl.R.P.690/2015 managing the Firm and she was sleeping partner and in view of the principles laid down in the above cited ruling of our own Hon'ble High Court, it is clear that non-enclosure of another partner who has signed the cheque will not cause any illegality in the proceedings. Further the counsel for the petitioner has produced Memo with letter written by petitioner to the Manager of Dhanalakshmi Bank, JC Road Branch and wherein he has requested the Manager of the Bank to stop payment in respect of the cheque No.292652 and the petitioner has signed himself as Managing Partner and the said aspect clearly goes to show that petitioner has admitted that he is managing partner of the Firm. The trial court has considered all the aspects and rightly concluded that the proposed accused No.3 is not necessary party and rejected the application. Perusal of the order under revision clearly goes to show that the trial court has looked into the materials placed before her and rightly rejected the application moved by the revision petitioner under Sec.319 of Cr.P.C. The order under revision is not contrary to law, so no 13 Crl.R.P.690/2015 interference is necessary from this court. Hence, for the above discussions, I answer point No.1 in the NEGATIVE.
Bangalore District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1