Sri.M.Suresh Kumar vs Sri. K.Gopalaraju on 9 January, 2019
x) In Smt.Manjula G Vs., Smt. Manjula B.T, in
Crl. Appeal No.436/2010, decided by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.06 seconds)Documents citing
Smt. Manjula G vs Smt. Manjula B T on 27 March, 2018
Sri. T.Kumar vs Sri. K.Gopalaraju on 9 January, 2019
x) In Smt.Manjula G Vs., Smt. Manjula B.T, in Crl.
Mr. Venkatesh M vs Sri. S. Noorulla Khan on 9 January, 2020
17. The learned counsel appearing for the accused
relied on the rulings reported in 2014(3) Crimes 291 (SC)
(Ramdas Vs.Krishnananda), 2013(3) Crimes 246(SC) (Vijay
vs. Laxman and anr.), 2018(2) Crimes 580(Karn) (Manjula G.
vs. Manjula B.T), 2019(3) KCCR 2126(SC) (Anss Rajashekar
vs. Augustus Jeba Ananth), K.Subramani vs. K. Damodara
Naidu(Crl.
Sri.Ravindra Mayanna vs Sri.M.Shankarappa on 2 December, 2022
38. The learned counsel for the accused has also
relied upon a decision reported in 2018 ACD 878 (KAR)
in between Smt. Manjula V. Vs. Smt. Manjula B.T.,
wherein while dealing with the provisions of Sec.138 of
NI Act, the Hon'ble high Court of Karnataka has pleased
to held that when nothing to show that the complainant
had such huge amount at the time of advancing loan
and not in a financial position to lend money, then it
amounts to rebuttal of presumption and the accused is
entitled to an order of Acquittal.
M/S Lucky Military And General Stores vs M/S Brigade Security Solutions (India) ... on 15 June, 2024
5. Heard both the sides. I have gone thorough the
citations relied upon by the counsel for the accused
reported in 2008 (2) Crimes (HC58), between Manjula
G. Vs. Manjula B.T. of Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka and also a decision of the Hon'ble Kerala
5
C.C.NO.51463/2021
High Court in Crl.Rev.P.No.664/2014 dated 10.01.2018
between Susamma Raju Vs. K.M.Wilson and Another.
Perused the materials available on record.
K T Venkatesh vs M S Vasanth Kumar on 9 August, 2024
36. On perusal of the cross-examination of the PW-1, he has
admitted that apart from the accused he has not filed any other case
against other persons. PW-1 has also admitted that he has filed case
against one Rajendra. During the course of cross-examination of PW-
1 certified copy of the order sheet in CC.No.52/2016 was confronted
and also the certified copy of the complaint were confronted and
marked through PW-1 as per Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. The counsel for the
accused during the course of the arguments has relied on the
22 CC.No.5355/2020
decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. Appeal
No.2921/2012 dated 23.11.2020 between Srichand S/o Laxman
Vernekar V/s Sekharr R.Kundagol, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka in the said decision has held that the accused has raised
and substantiated a doubt regarding financial capacity of the
complainant. Accordingly, the appeal was came to be dismissed.
Ramesh vs Srinivasa on 15 November, 2025
8. (LAWS) KAR 2018, 3 331- Manjula.G. Vs. Manjula B.T
9
C.C.No.9369/2021
1