Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 110 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Umaswamy vs K.N. Ramanath on 1 June, 2006

Rane T4U Private Limited vs M/S. Goodsmover Technologies on 4 January, 2021

12. Heard arguments. Notes of arguments also filed by complainant and in support of arguments relied upon the decisions reported in (2010) 3 SCC 83 between Mandvi Co-operative bank ltd Vs Nimesh B Thakore, 1971 (2) SCC 617 between M/s. between M/s. Bareilly Electricity Supply Co.Ltd versus The Workmen and others, AIR 1983 BOMBAY 1 between Om Prakash Berlia and another plaintiffs Vs Unit Trust of India and others defendants, (2015) 9 SCC 755 between , Umaswamy versus Ramanath reported in III (2007) BC 211 and (1998) 3 SCC 249 between M/s. Modi Cements limtied vs Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi.
Bangalore District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Logistics Private Limited A Company vs Representing The First Accused Had ... on 16 March, 2022

During the course of arguments the counsel for the complainant argued that even security cheques issued towards repayment of an amount with a time period being stipulated for repayment and if such cheques presented after the loan becomes due the Section 138 NI Act is attracted and relied upon decision of Hon'ble S.C. in Sripati Singh (since deceased) Through His Son Gaurav Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., and decision of our High Court in 2006 CRI.L.J.3760 in the case of Smt.Umaswamy Vs. K.N.Ramanath. I have perused the said decisions but the facts and circumstances of that case and this case are different and hence they are not applicable to this case. To attract Section 138 NI Act the legally recoverable debt should arise before presenting the security cheques which is not arisen in this case as discussed above still reconciliation of differences in entries and errors in ECDS system was not addressed and no final conclusion arrived with regard to actual due and as per the Ex.D.5 itself the due of 1.1 CR was in the 53 CC No.20035/2011 SCCH-25 market and as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the accused it is collected by the complainant from the customers directly as per Ex.P.9 itself. The other decisions relied upon by the counsel for the complainant are with regard to drawing presumption in favour of holder. As already discussed above the presumption is rebuttable one and by leading defence evidence the accused rebutted the presumption available to the complainant by raising a probable defence and proved his defence with preponderance of probabilities and the onus shifted on the complainant to prove the existence of legally recoverable debt. When the accused clearly denied about existence of due and proved his defence as contended in his reply by leading evidence that pending correction of the errors in ECDS system without any reasons the complainant without their knowledge presented cheques, then the complainant should have lead evidence to discharge onus shifted on them by producing the reconciliation done by them and the documents for having solved ECDS errors as discussed in the meeting held between the two companies 54 CC No.20035/2011 SCCH-25 (complainant and accused) on 25.2.2011, which has not been done by the complainant for the reasons best known to them.
Bangalore District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Logistics Private Limited A Company vs Representing The First Accused Had ... on 16 March, 2022

During the course of arguments the counsel for the complainant argued that even security cheques issued towards repayment of an amount with a 52 CC No.20034/2011 SCCH-25 time period being stipulated for repayment and if such cheques presented after the loan becomes due the Section 138 NI Act is attracted and relied upon decision of Hon'ble S.C. in Sripati Singh (since deceased) Through His Son Gaurav Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr., and decision of our High Court in 2006 CRI.L.J.3760 in the case of Smt.Umaswamy Vs. K.N.Ramanath. I have perused the said decisions but the facts and circumstances of that case and this case are different and hence they are not applicable to this case. To attract Section 138 NI Act the legally recoverable debt should arise before presenting the security cheques which is not arisen in this case as discussed above still reconciliation of differences in entries and errors in ECDS system was not addressed and no final conclusion arrived with regard to actual due and as per the Ex.D.5 itself the due of 1.1 CR was in the market and as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the accused it is collected by the complainant from the customers directly as per Ex.P.27 itself. The other decisions relied upon by the counsel for the complainant 53 CC No.20034/2011 SCCH-25 are with regard to drawing presumption in favour of holder. As already discussed above the presumption is rebuttable one and by leading defence evidence the accused rebutted the presumption available to the complainant by raising a probable defence and proved his defence with preponderance of probabilities and the onus shifted on the complainant to prove the existence of legally recoverable debt. When the accused clearly denied about existence of due and proved his defence as contended in his reply by leading evidence that pending correction of the errors in ECDS system without any reasons the complainant without their knowledge presented cheques, then the complainant should have lead evidence to discharge onus shifted on them by producing the reconciliation done by them and the documents for having solved ECDS errors as discussed in the meeting held between the two companies (complainant and accused) on 25.2.2011, which has not been done by the complainant for the reasons best known to them.
Bangalore District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

And Has Paid Rs.3 vs No.1 Being The Company Has Committed The ... on 4 August, 2022

In this circumstances, both the accused No.2 and 3 are responsible persons as the case may be. 2006 (6) KAR.L.J 217 ( Smt.Umaswamy Vs K.N.Ramanath) "It is held Sec.138 and 139 dishonor of cheque -prosecution of drawer for acquittal of accused drawer on ground that cheque was issued as security for repayment of amount that may become due and not in settlement of any pre­existing liability, is held, bad in law cheque whether issued as security or in settlement of any debt SCCH-20. 26 CC. No.10317/2014 or liability makes no difference when amount due is not paid, holder of cheque which he had received as security, is entitled to present cheque for encashment­statutory presumption is that holder of cheque received cheque for discharge of any debt or other liability­where drawer accused has not been able to rebut presumption he is liable to be convicted for offence". 12. The accused No.2 and 3 did not deny the service of notice on them. They could have given evidence of probable defence by examining themselves and produce documentary evidence for retirement of accused No.3 or full repayment. Now the accused No.2 and 3 can not take such defence that cheque was issued blank and amount fill in it is tampered. If at all the accused No.2 and 3 payment is made to the complainant, they would not have kept silent until the complaint was filed. No legal recourse is taken either to honor the contract or legal action initiated to recover the cheques. Under the circumstances, it can be implied that, Accused No.2 signed and both issued cheques in the capacity of partner in the firm. The accused No.2 and 3 are is well aware of their liability towards issuing the cheque in favour SCCH-20. 27 CC. No.10317/2014 of the complainant firm. The Accused does not place probable evidence to believe the payment for goods. It is not established the Ex.P1 to 5 are tampered. The Accused No.2 and 3 failed to raise probable defence. The presumption existing in favour of the complainant Under Section 139 of NI Act could not be rebutted. Even though bills and documents sought by the accused during cross­examination of PW­1 is not forthcoming, the cheques are most sufficient to honor claim of complainant. Therefore, Accused No.1 to 3 are held guilty for committing offence punishable Under Section 138 of NI Act.
Bangalore District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manager Examined Himself As Pw­1 And Got vs And Perused The Materials On Record on 30 August, 2022

In this circumstances, both the accused No.2 and 3 are responsible persons as the case may be. 2006 (6) KAR.L.J 217 ( Smt.Umaswamy Vs K.N.Ramanath) "It is held Sec.138 and 139 dishonor of cheque -prosecution of drawer for acquittal of accused drawer on ground that cheque was issued as security for repayment of amount that may become due and not in settlement of any pre­existing liability, is held, bad in law cheque whether issued as security or in settlement of any debt SCCH-20. 17 CC. No.58857/2018 or liability makes no difference when amount due is not paid, holder of cheque which he had received as security, is entitled to present cheque for encashment­statutory presumption is that holder of cheque received cheque for discharge of any debt or other liability­where drawer accused has not been able to rebut presumption he is liable to be convicted for offence". 12. The accused No.2 and 3 did not deny the service of notice on them. They could have given evidence of probable defence by examining themselves and produce documentary evidence for retirement of accused No.3 or full repayment. Now the accused No.2 and 3 can not take such defence that cheque was issued blank and amount fill in it is tampered. If at all the accused No.2 and 3 payment is made to the complainant, they would not have kept silent until the complaint was filed. No legal recourse is taken either to honor the contract or legal action initiated to recover the cheques. Under the circumstances, it can be implied that, Accused No.2 signed and both issued cheques in the capacity of partner in the firm. The accused No.2 and 3 are is well aware of their liability towards issuing the cheque in favour SCCH-20. 18 CC. No.58857/2018 of the complainant firm. The Accused does not place probable evidence to believe the payment for goods. It is not established the Ex.P1 to 5 are tampered. The Accused No.2 and 3 failed to raise probable defence. The presumption existing in favour of the complainant Under Section 139 of NI Act could not be rebutted. Even though bills and documents sought by the accused during cross­examination of PW­1 is not forthcoming, the cheques are most sufficient to honor claim of complainant. Therefore, Accused No.1 to 3 are held guilty for committing offence punishable Under Section 138 of NI Act.
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next