Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Santosh Manikrao Gundale vs Rameshwar Wamanrao Tak And Anr. on 6 November, 2006

Digitally Signed By vs . Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 Scc ... on 17 January, 2022

26. The judgments relied upon the Ld. Counsel for the accused, Santosh Manikrao Gundale v. Rameshwar Wamanrao & Anr. (supra), B.P. CC No. 528587/2016 Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal v. Kahakahsan @ Seema Page 15 of 20 Digitally signed by KRATIKA KRATIKA CHATURVEDI CHATURVEDI Date: 2022.01.17 15:11:34 +05'30' Venkatesulu v. K.P. Mani (supra), John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham & Anr. (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the complainant has placed on record independent proof of the fact of the said loan transaction, i.e., promissory note vide Ex. CW1/7 and receipt vide Ex. CW1/8, which bears the signature of the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. H.K.Rachappaji vs Smt. Arathi.S.Patil on 3 December, 2019

JUDGMENT 7 CC.No:8440/2016 i. (2015) I SCC 99 (K. Subramani V/s. K. Damodara Naidu) in which Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, Dishonour of cheque-legally recoverable debt not proved as complainant could not prove source of income from which alleged loan was made to appellant-accused-presumption in favour of holder of cheque, hence, held, stood rebutted- acquittal restored etc., ii. Further relied on decision reported in IV (2007) BC 211 (Santhosh Manikrao Gundale Vs., Rameshwar Wamanrao Tak and ano) in which the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that, No infirmities found in judgment-presumption under sec.139 of act rebutted by material on record-judgment of acquittal not perverse-no necessity to grant leave to prefer appeal against judgment of acquittal etc., iii.
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anand Kaushik vs Ashok Sharma on 20 April, 2011

42. So far as the judicial opinion of Santosh Manikrao Gundale vs. Rameshwar Wamanrao Tak & Another, 2007 (1) Acquittal 546 case is concerned, that also relates to a criminal case where the accused has taken a defence in a criminal complaint regarding the source of income of the complainant. The present case has distinguishably different facts wherein the defendants have admitted of receipt of building raw material during the construction of their house, during the year 1999­2000 at the instance of the plaintiff and it was on the defendants to prove that they discharge their liability of such payments and it was not on the plaintiff to prove his ability/source of advancement of the loan to the defendants. Thus, on the factual matrix of the case, the instant case is different from the case cited, having no application of such opinion, in this case.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Ramamani W/O Chanddrappa vs Smt.Savitha.M. W/O M.K.Shivaram on 10 October, 2017

I have carefully gone through the above said authorities. I do admit the proposition of law laid down in the above said authorities. But the facts involved in the case on hand are entirely different to the facts involved in the above said authorities. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above authorities is not aptly applicable to the case on hand.
Bangalore District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pankaj Kumar vs Gopal Dass Vaid (Dead) on 13 September, 2010

It was also contended that Ld. Trial Court miserably failed to appreciate that presumption under section 139 and 118 (a) of NI Act is rebuttable and the facts and circumstances of the present case clearly shows that the presumption is rebutted and the appellant/accused having discharged the initial burden, onus shifted on the respondent/complainant who failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts without help of the presumption. It is highly probable defence that the cheques were C.A. No. 56/4/10 & 57/4/10 Page 5/13 stoled. This fact is also corroborated by the material available on record. The respondent/complainant cross examined and the affidavit filed by them, such as the respondent/complainant stated in his cross examination dated 04.11.2009 that about 3-4 days prior to 31.05.2006 on instructions received from the accused via telephonic conversation the name was filled up by Gopal Dass Vaid on the cheques and the cheques were presented, whereas in affidavit filed by the respondent Sunil Kumar Vaid, stated that the telephonic conversation was on 31.05.2006. the father of the respondent/complainant goes to the extent that on 31.05.2006 he came to the chamber of his counsel for the purpose of drafting and issuing a legal notice to serve to the accused. When a person earns only 1500/- per month from his general shop and his father's pension is 2600/- per month, there are four daughters in his family, is it conceivable by any stretch of imagination that this family can advance a loan of Rs.4,50,000/-. Reliance placed on Santosh Manikrao Gundale Vs. Rameshwar Wamanrao Tak & anr ( Bombay High Court) 2007 (1) Acquuittal 546 and K. Prakashan Vs. P.K. Surenderan VIII (2007) SLT 750.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1