Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.45 seconds)
Documents citing M/S Sekhon And Sekhon Finance And ... vs Rani on 21 August, 2013

In Re: Krishan Gopal vs . Dansingh Bisht on 1 June, 2023

32. Before parting with the judgment it is pertinent to mention that during the course of final arguments, the Ld. counsel for the accused has relied on the following judgments: P Jayaraj v. R Saroja 2007 (1) DCR 562 - primary burden of proof lies upon the complainant; K Prakashan v. P K Sundaran - the accused must rebut the presumptions as per the requirement of preponderance of probabilities; J K Abraham v. Simon C Abraham Criminal Appeal 2043/23 - Evidence of source of income has to be proved by the complainant ; M/s Sekhon and Sekhon v. Rani (CRMA 212 - MA 2012- mere admission of signatures does not tantamount to admission of guilt. This court humbly bows down to the law laid down in the abovementioned judgments and the same have been duly considered in appreciating the facts and circumstances of the present case. Lastly, in his written arguments, the Ld. counsel for the accused has also emphasized on the fact that the complainant has failed to establish the fact that the territorial jurisdiction of the present matter lies with this court, as he did not summon the authorized employee of his bank to prove the fact that the said bank lies within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. In the considered opinion of this court, the said argument is devoid of any merits, as the return memorandum (Ex.CW1/B) categorically mentions the bank of the complainant to be State Bank of India, Uttam Nagar, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this court. Thus, the accused cannot be given any benefit of the argument that the complainant has failed to prove that this court lacks the territorial jurisdiction to try the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cc No. 2145/12 M/S Prestige Finvest Pvt ... vs Smt. Rahisha on 29 November, 2014

9. Ld counsel for the accused also relied upon following authorities in support of his arguments; (i) M/s Battery Pace vs P.K. Singh & Anr. 2013 (1) DCR 373 [Allahabad High Court]; (ii) M/s Sekhon & Sekhon Finance vs Rani 2013 (3) DCR 120 [Punjab & Haryana High Court]; (iii) Gulam Mujtaba Khan @ Gulam Mustafa Khan vs State of Bihar 2011 (1) DCR 398 [Patna High Court]; (iv) C. Santhi vs Mary Sherly & Anr. 2012 (1) Civ.C.R. 152 (Ker.)
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Abhishek Sharma vs Sh. Vipin Kumar on 19 September, 2015

titled as "Santhi Vs. Mary Sherly", 2012 (2) DCR 741 titled as "Baiju G. Nath, Laiju Nivas Vs. Girija Krishnakumar", AIR 1991 Orissa 25, 2009 (1) DCR 314 titled as "Gopan Vs. Tonny Varghese", 2012 (1) DCR 410 titled as "Shri Jose Pullan @ Joseph P. Vs. Smti Uma Jasrasaria", 2013 (3) DCR 120 titled as " M/s. Sekhon and Sekhon Finance And Vs. Rani" and 2008 Cri. L. J. 2955. I have perused all these judgments with utmost regard but these judgments are distinct from the facts in hand mainly on the point that appellant has failed to prove on record any document to show that he has taken loan from Sunil Kumar and Sunil Kumar did not appear before the ld. Trial Court to prove that appellant has taken loan from him. Moreover, the appellant has not adduced any positive evidence regarding promissory notes.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Abhishek Sharma vs Sh. Vipin Kumar on 19 September, 2015

titled as "Santhi CA old No. 60/12 & New No. 49/15. Page No. 12/15 Vs. Mary Sherly", 2012 (2) DCR 741 titled as "Baiju G. Nath, Laiju Nivas Vs. Girija Krishnakumar", AIR 1991 Orissa 25, 2009 (1) DCR 314 titled as "Gopan Vs. Tonny Varghese", 2012 (1) DCR 410 titled as "Shri Jose Pullan @ Joseph P. Vs. Smti Uma Jasrasaria", 2013 (3) DCR 120 titled as " M/s. Sekhon and Sekhon Finance And Vs. Rani" and 2008 Cri. L. J. 2955. I have perused all these judgments with utmost regard but these judgments are distinct from the facts in hand mainly on the point that appellant has failed to prove on record any document to show that he has taken loan from Sunil Kumar and Sunil Kumar did not appear before the ld. Trial Court to prove that appellant has taken loan from him. Moreover, the appellant has not adduced any positive evidence regarding rent agreement and rent receipts.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next