Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing S.P. Rajkumar vs M.J. Prabhakar on 18 July, 2023

Vijayananda Hegde vs Prakash Babu N K on 20 September, 2025

He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2024 (1) KCCR 166 (S.P.RAJKUMR VS. M.J. PRABHAKAR), wherein the complainant did not produce the bank statement or income tax returns to prove the allegations - as per accused had borrowed some smaller amount long back and the complainant has used the cheque issued on that occasion. - presumption raised by the trial court in favour of the complainant untenable - judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside.
Bangalore District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri H B Arun Gowda vs Sri Jayaramaiah on 10 July, 2024

34. No prudent man believe that a person who is not filing Income Tax Returns was / is having huge income of Rs.15 to 20 Lakhs per annum and advanced the huge amount of Rs.19,00,000/- without obtaining any documentary evidence and without imposing interest. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ruling reported in 2024 (1) KCCR 166 in the case of S.P.Rajakumar Vs. M.J.Prabhakara held that, without production of bank statement or IT return averments made in the complaint is not acceptable one. When the financial capacity to pay the amount was questioned, the complainant has to give the JUDGMENT - 26 - C.C. 3155/2022 satisfactory explanation to prove the said fact. But in the case on hand the complainant has not furnished his bank statement or got examined other witnesses who were present at the time of issuance of disputed cheques by the accused or he has not given proper explanation to establish that he was having sufficient source of income to lend the huge amount of Rs.19,00,000/- to the accused and his father.
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri H B Arun Gowda vs Sri Ramanjini on 10 July, 2024

33. No prudent man believe that a person who is not filing Income Tax Returns was / is having huge income of Rs.15 to 20 Lakhs per annum and advanced the huge amount of Rs.19,00,000/- without obtaining any JUDGMENT - 26 - C.C. 32530/2021 documentary evidence and without imposing interest. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in ruling reported in 2024 (1) KCCR 166 in the case of S.P.Rajakumar Vs. M.J.Prabhakara held that, without production of bank statement or IT return averments made in the complaint is not acceptable one. When the financial capacity to pay the amount was questioned, the complainant has to give the satisfactory explanation to prove the said fact. But in the case on hand the complainant has not furnished his bank statement or got examined other witnesses who were present at the time of issuance of disputed cheques by the accused or he has not given proper explanation to establish that he was having sufficient source of income to lend the huge amount of Rs.19,00,000/- to the accused and his father.
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Clover Tech vs M/S Sai Neha Constructions (I) Pvt Ltd on 2 August, 2024

In recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2024 (1) KCCR 166, S.P.Rajakumar Vs. M.J.Prabhakar held that, when the complainant failed to discharge the initial burden that amount was paid to the petitioner, the courts below ought not to have raised the presumption that, cheque was issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt. Hence, this ruling is also applicable to the present case on hand as complainant has not furnished the statement of her Bank Account and Income Tax Return.
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt R Showri vs M/S Sai Neha Constructions (I) Pvt Ltd on 2 August, 2024

In recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2024 (1) KCCR 166, S.P.Rajakumar Vs. M.J.Prabhakar held that, when the JUDGMENT - 14 - C.C. 34897/2022 complainant failed to discharge the initial burden that amount was paid to the petitioner, the courts below ought not to have raised the presumption that, cheque was issued for discharge of legally enforceable debt. Hence, this ruling is also applicable to the present case on hand as complainant has not furnished the statement of her Bank Account and Income Tax Return.
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mr Vinod Kumar Rai M vs Mrs Preetham Bhandary on 8 January, 2025

- 16 - C.C.No. 9924/2021 168 S.P.Rajkumar Vs. M.J.Prabhakar and (2023) 10 SCC 148, Rajesh Jain V/s Ajay Singh which has discussion regarding financial capacity of the complainant and his failure to prove the same. Observations made therein is applicable to the case on hand. The complainant in order to prove his financial capacity has not produced any documentary evidence. There is no single piece of document to show that the complainant possessed Rs.12,00,000/- by way of cash as on date of advancement of alleged loan. That apart, the complainant who claims receipt of part payment of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.20,000/- deposited by the accused, has not produced his bank statements or any related document to believe his version. This non action by the complainant in producing above documents raises a presumption to be probable one questioning the financial capacity of the complainant and also existence of legally recoverable debt.
Bangalore District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next