Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Fakirappa Siddappa Halagatti vs Smt.Siddavva D/O Lakshappa Halagatti on 18 April, 2022

Karnataka Agro Chemicals vs Kanchi Agro Service on 8 February, 2024

Similarly, he has not stated anything as to why the accused could not return those goods which were supplied during the lockdown period on the ground that he could not make use of those goods. If at all, any such substandard goods were supplied to the accused during lock down period, he could have returned the same to the com- plainant company on the ground that due to lock down he could not sell those goods. In the absence of any such action on the part of the accused, it is highly impossible to accept this version of the accused only on the basis of mere suggestions. As held by our Hon'ble High court in the case of Siddappa Vs. Smt. Chand bee Hyderabad Reported in 2014 Cr.R 646 (kant), " mere suggestion will 12 CC.NO.20305/21 not take place of proof even by means of preponderance of probabali- ties and something more is required to rebut the presumption".
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Emvee Solar Systems vs Lumen Industries on 30 April, 2024

As already discussed herein above, the accused appears to have not given any demand notice in respect of alleged subsidy as well as the commission amount. If at all, as alleged by the ac- cused the complainant company was due to pay any such subsidy or the commission, what prevented the ac- cused to make a demand for the same either by way of issuing demand notice or sending any E-mail communi- cation or requisition. In the absence of any such mate- rial particulars, it cannot be accepted only on the basis of mere suggestions and bare denials that the com- plainant company was due to pay subsidy and commis- sion to the accused. For this proposition, this court is fortified by the decision of Hon'ble High court of Kar- nataka in the case of Siddappa Vs. Smt. Chand bee Hyderabad reported in 2014 Cr.R 646 (kant), wherein it was held as follows :
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Steel Hypermart India Pvt. Ltd vs R Murugan on 17 September, 2024

17. Further during the examination in chief, the accused deposed that he has not received the notice. On perusal of Ex.P15 & 16 Notice has been returned as "unclaimed" & "No such company found now" and as the accused has not disputed the address mentioned at Ex.P15 & 16, the same will have to be construed as deemed service and as the complainant has sent notice to the correct address of the accused, this court will have to raise presumption as contemplated U/sec. 27 of the General Clauses Act that as the notice is sent to the correct address the same is a deemed service. The said proposition of law is laid down in the ruling decided between C.C. ALAVI HAJI V/s. PALAPETTY MUHAMMED AND ANOTHER (Crl.Appeal No. 767/2007) decided on 18/05/2007, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex court at Paragraph No.14 held that:
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Terraserve Foods Pvt. Ltd vs Shree Basava Enterprises on 12 September, 2024

17. The defence taken by the accused is with regard to issuance of said cheque Ex.P1 towards discharge of said liability under the said documents. In this regard, in the course of cross-examination of PW2, the accused contended that said cheque Ex.P1 was given to the complainant as security. But, except mere suggestion, nothing was elicited to substantiate that said cheque was issued as security. More so, he has neither adduced any evidence nor produced any materials to show that there has been the practice of taking such cheques as security in the complainant company. As held by our Hon'ble High court in the case of Siddappa Vs. Smt. Chand bee Hyderabad 14 CC No.36942/2022 Reported in 2014 Cr.R 646 (kant), " mere suggestion will not take place of proof even by means of preponderance of probabalities and something more is required to rebut the presumption". the accused has not placed any credible evidence before the court to establish that the Ex.P1 cheque was issued towards security and notably, the accused has not even explained in his statement recorded U/sec. 313 of Cr.P.C., as to how the subject cheque came in to possession of the complainant company.
Bangalore District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next