Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing S.E. Investments Ltd. vs Prem Singh on 6 February, 2019

Religare Finvest Limtied vs Kavita Mantosh Prasad on 7 May, 2024

2024.05.07 16:47:05 +0530 cheque in issue, disputed cheque was not in discharge of liability rather was handed over as a security at time of initiation of loan proceeding, complaint is silent on the date when the cheque was tendered, there is difference in the handwriting and ink of particulars of the cheque which proves that undated cheque was handed over, complainant has given evasive answers during his cross-examination about how the complainant is in possession of cheque, there is no tri-partite agreement between complainant, accused and Himi Cargo Services India Pvt. Ltd. thus there is no material on record to prove that accused has taken over the liability of Himi Cargo Services India Pvt. Ltd., no document has been filed to show that loan amount was disbursed to Himi Cargo Services India Pvt. Ltd., existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption u/s 139 NI Act and complainant has failed to prove its case beyond doubt and thus prayed to acquit the accused. To support his contention, Ld. counsel for accused relied upon the cases of A.S. Rathore v. Vimal Jain, Afrojkhan v. Mandodara, Candy Spirit Pvt. Ltd. v. Reeves Mia & ors. (2012) ALL MR (Cri) 403, Vikky v. M/s Navbharat Press, Ashish C. Shah v. M/s Seth Developers (2011) ALL MR(Cri)1528, Surendra Sanganeria v. Ramesh Rijumal & anr., Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Hari Chander @ Hariya, Devarsha Dnyaneshwar Parob v. Mulgao Sirigao Advalpal, S.E. Investments Ltd. v. Prem Singh, Floyd Coutinho v. Beatrica Dias & State, Rajendra Baburao Mahale v. Varsha Mahesh Dangarekar & anr. and Rambhau Tulsiram Bhusari v.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1