Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Sudhakar Reddy C.B vs Smt Pushpa on 12 October, 2023

Harha S vs Mallikarjun H Rao on 27 March, 2026

C.C.No.30188/2024 Here, though the accused was not successful in establishing the defence of the complainant collecting the disputed cheque with force or his wife having stolen the disputed cheque, but he was successful in rebutting the presumption in establishing the claim made by the complainant as a time barred debt and it is not legally recoverable debt. Because, the very claim of the complainant is that, he had advanced Rs.7 lakhs from 15.03.2017 to 30.06.2020. Here, the last payment ie., 30.06.2020 makes more relevant to appreciate the claim of the defence. The PW.1 would contend that, the disputed cheque was being issued on 24.11.2023, much less before the institution of Ex.D.1 proceeding. But, however in para No.5 of the complaint, it would indicate that, the disputed cheque is alleged to have been issued in the month of April 2024. Either, if the date ie., 24.11.2023 or the month of 22 C.C.No.30188/2024 April 2024 is calculated, it indicates that, the disputed cheque appears to have been issued after the lapse of three years and in the meantime, there was no document reduced in writing so as to accept it as a time debt. The complainant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Rev. Pet. No. 256/2022, Sudhakar Reddy C.B. Vs. Pushpa., wherein a point of time barred debt is raised and it is being negativated by the Hon'ble High Court by observing that, even the issuance of the cheque in repayment of time barred debt amounts to a written promise within the meaning of Sec.25(3) of Indian Contract Act. It is not in dispute that, even in the case in hand the disputed cheque alleges to have been issued after the lapse of time period ie., after three years.
Bangalore District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ratnakar Hegde vs Mangala on 2 January, 2024

No.256/2022 dt:12.10.2023, Sudhakar Reddy C.B. Vs. Smt.Pushpa., wherein the Hon'ble High court has referred the judgment relied by the accused in the said judgment and has opined that, even issuing the cheque to the time barred debt, as per Sec.25(3) of the Contract Act, it forms 20 C.C.No.30138/2022 the promise and it creates a legally enforceable debt and it squarely attracts sec. 138 of N.I.Act. So, by applying the judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the above referred Criminal Revision Petition, I do not find any ground to appreciate the argument of the defence and when, the Hon'ble High Court has clearly held that, by issuing a cheque for discharge of time barred debt is a promise and it would attract sec. 138 of N.I.Act, I am of the considered view that, the amount covered under the cheque is legally enforceable debt. With due respect, it could be said that, the decision relied by the accused is not applicable to the case in hand.
Bangalore District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs Duragappa D on 15 November, 2024

Further, in recent Judgment of Hon'ble High court of Karnataka between Sudhakar Reddy vs. Pushpa, in Crl.R.P. No. 256/2022 (DD 12.10.2023) held that, issuance of cheque towards time barred debt creates legally enforceable debt as per Sec. 25(3) of Indian Contract Act. Therefore, the said defence i.e., the debt is time barred debt and the complaint is not maintainable holds no water.
Bangalore District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. Sudha Rani M vs Sri. Harish P.J on 4 October, 2025

In recent case law Sri Sudhakar Reddy C.B vs Smt Pushpa decide on 12 October, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION 30 C.C.923/2023 PETITION NO.256/2022 , Hon'ble karnataka High court held that "39. Thus, when the questions formulated by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Bombay was referred to the Division Bench, it took pains in considering the matter from various facets and answered both the questions in the Affirmative. Thereby, holding that issuance of cheque is a promise in writing within the meaning of sub section (3) of Section 25 of the Contract Act and it is an exception to the general rule that the agreement without consideration is void. Thus, issuance of a cheque satisfies the ingredients of sub section (3) of Section 25, i.e., promise made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith to pay wholly or in part a dent of which the creditor might have enforced payment, but for the law for the limitation of suits and as such, the cheque becomes a cheque drawn towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt as contemplated by the explanation to Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, the position of law is laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay and there is no reason for not accepting the same.
Bangalore District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P Sudheer vs Lakshmi Keshava Dixit M C on 13 October, 2025

In recent case law Sri Sudhakar Reddy C.B vs Smt Pushpa decide on 12 October, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.256/2022 , Hon'ble karnataka High court held that "39. Thus, when the questions formulated by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Bombay was referred to the Division Bench, it took pains in considering the matter from various facets and answered both the questions in the Affirmative. Thereby, holding that issuance of cheque is a promise in writing within the meaning of sub section (3) of Section 25 of the Contract Act and it is an exception to the general rule that the agreement without consideration is void. Thus, issuance of a cheque satisfies the ingredients of sub section (3) of Section 25, i.e., promise made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith to pay wholly or in part a dent of which the creditor might have enforced payment, but for the law for the limitation of suits and as such, the 39 C.C.35709/2024 cheque becomes a cheque drawn towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt as contemplated by the explanation to Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, the position of law is laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay and there is no reason for not accepting the same.
Bangalore District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Kalpana Souharda Co-Operative Ltd vs Rajeshwari on 7 January, 2026

25. On the contrary the learned counsel for the complainant by relying upon the Judgment in Crl.R.P.256/2022 dated 12.10.2023 between Sri. Sudhakar Reddy C. B. vs. Smt. Pushpa, argued that issuance of a cheque is a promise in writing within the meaning of Sub Sec. (3) of the Sec.25 of the Contract Act and it is an exception to the general rule that agreement without consideration is a void. The issuance of a cheque satisfy the ingredients of such Sub Sec.(3) of the Sec.25 i.e., promise made in writing and KABC030227382024 JUDGMENT CC N O.13772/2024
Bangalore District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Srinivas Reddy vs R. Pandian on 13 January, 2026

In Sri Sudhakar Reddy C.B vs Smt Pushpa decided on 12 October, 2023 CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.256/2022, Hon'ble High Court of Karnatka observed that, "39. Thus, when the questions formulated by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Bombay was referred to the Division Bench, it took pains in considering the matter from various facets and answered both the questions in the Affirmative. Thereby, holding that issuance of cheque is a promise in writing within the meaning of sub section (3) of Section 25 of the Contract Act and it is an exception to the general rule that the agreement without consideration is void. Thus, issuance of a cheque satisfies the ingredients of sub section (3) of Section 25 , i.e., promise made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith to pay wholly or in part a dent of which the creditor might have enforced payment, but for the law for the limitation of suits and as such, the cheque becomes a cheque drawn towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt as contemplated by the explanation to Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, the position of law is laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay and there is no reason for not accepting the same. 40. In view of the settled position of law, even if the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the cheques were issued towards a time barred debt is to be accepted, by applying the 17 C.C.34039/2023 above principle of law to the present case, issuance of cheques in question amount to written promise to pay the said debt, as provided under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act and it creates legally enforceable debt. Hence, it squarely attracts Section 138 of NI Act.
Bangalore District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bharath Hi-Tech Builders Private ... vs Kaveri Gowda B on 30 April, 2026

39. Thus, when the questions formulated by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Bombay was referred to the Division Bench, it took pains in considering the matter from various facets and answered both the questions in the Affirmative. Thereby, holding that issuance of cheque is a promise in writing within the meaning of sub section (3) of Section 25 of the Contract Act and it is an exception to the general rule that the agreement without consideration is void. Thus, issuance of a cheque satisfies the ingredients of sub section (3) of Section 25, i.e., promise made in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith to pay wholly or in part a dent of which the creditor might have enforced payment, but for the law for the limitation of suits and as such, the cheque becomes a cheque drawn towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt as contemplated by the explanation to Section 138 of the NI Act. Therefore, the position of law is laid down by the Division Bench of High Court of Bombay and there is no reason for not accepting the same.
Bangalore District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next