Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 153 (0.70 seconds)
Documents citing Lillykutty vs Lawrance on 29 August, 2003

Of "Rajesh Agarwal vs . State & Anr." Passed On July 28, 2010, ... on 16 September, 2011

Para 20 : ­ "A collective reading of the above provisions shows that even under the scheme of the NI Act it is possible for the drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed by him to the payee and consent either impliedly or expressly to the said cheque being filled up at a subsequent point in time and presented for payment by the drawee. There is no provision in the NI Act which either defines the difference in the handwriting or the ink pertaining to the material particulars filled up in comparison with the signature thereon as constituting a 'material alteration' for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act. What however is essential is that the cheque must have been signed by the drawer. If the signature is altered or does not tally with the normal signature of the maker, that would be a material alteration. Therefore as long as the cheque has been signed by the drawer, the fact that the ink in which the name and figures are written or the date is filled up is different from the ink of the signature is not a material alteration for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act." Para 21 : ­ "The position in law has been explained in the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Lillykutty v. Lawrance 2003 (2) DCR 610 in the following words:
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Concord Leasing & Hire Purchase Pvt vs P.Bhargavan on 27 July, 2009

4. Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the lower appellate court misread and misappreciated the evidence and applied wrong principles of law to enter an order of acquittal in favour of the accused, reversing the conviction founded against him by the trial magistrate. The accused had admitted of the execution of the cheque though he had denied the execution of the promissory notes when the loan amounts were collected, submits the counsel. The accused had also admitted, according to the learned counsel, the receipt of money from the complainant, but setting up a different version over the transaction. When that be the case, the lower appellate court was not justified, according to the learned counsel, in interfering with the conviction imposed against the accused by the trial magistrate for the solitary reason that the handwritings in Ext.P1 cheque as to the entries made therein differ from the signature subscribed which was admitted by the accused. The defence canvassed by the accused built upon the different handwritings seen Crl.A.No.183/02 - 4 - in filling up of Ext.P1 cheque is not worthy of any merit in the given facts of the case, contends the counsel placing reliance on Lillykutty v. Lawrance (2003(3) KLT 721) wherein it has been held that where the handwriting of the payee's name and the amount shown in the cheque differ from the handwriting of the drawer of the cheque it is not a ground to hold that it was not validly issued or the cheque was not duly executed. Learned counsel contended that when receipt of money and handing over of a signed cheque to the complainant is admitted by the accused, the burden was on the accused to show that it was handed over in blank form and there was no due execution of the instrument. The accused having not let in any positive evidence in support of that defence, it deserved only to be discarded as meritless, submits the counsel. Learned counsel, therefore, urged for setting aside the order of acquittal rendered in favour of the accused by the learned Sessions Judge and restoring the conviction passed against the accused by the learned trial magistrate by allowing this appeal. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused supporting the impugned judgment of the learned Sessions Judge contended there there is no merit in the appeal and the materials produced in the case have unerringly established that the complainant had launched prosecution against Crl.A.No.183/02 - 5 - the accused forging various instruments even making false entries in Ext.P1 cheque which had been obtained from the accused in blank form with the signature alone. The accused had denied the execution of the cheque and in the given facts of the case without proving due execution of the instrument which the complainant has miserably failed, no conviction against the accused is permissible, submits the counsel. Previous notice issued by the complainant demanding the sum covered by the promissory notes without referring to Ext.P1 cheque is also highlighted by the learned counsel to contend that the defence version is more probable and the case of the complainant is unworthy of acceptance. The appeal filed by the accused impeaching the correctness of the order of acquittal passed by the lower appellate court, according to the learned counsel for the accused, lacks merit, and it is liable to be dismissed.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - S S Satheesachandran - Full Document

Cc.3520/1999 Of Judl. Magistrate Of ... vs Radhakrishnan 1998 on 10 August, 2011

It was further stated that Kunhimanu mentioned above is a close relative of PW1 and so Kunhimanu has handed-over the cheque leaf to PW1 to file this complaint. It is true that according to the accused, he was still liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to Kunhimanu mentioned above. But that will not in any way come to the rescue of the complainant to prove his case. The argument advanced Crl.Appeal No. 1387 OF 2004 5 by the learned counsel for the complainant that simply because payee's name and the amount shown in the cheque is not in the hand writing of the drawer of the cheque that is no reason to hold that it was not validly issued or that the cheque was not executed at all, for which he has relied upon the decision in Lillykutty V. Lawrance 2003 (3) KLT 721. Here, the oral evidence given by PW1 itself is found to be not fully true. His case based on the alleged receipt of the cheque leaf stands negated by the evidence given by DW.1, the accused. The circumstances projected by the defence is equally probable, if not more. The evidence adduced by the complainant and the accused is equally poised. The mere handing over of the signed blank cheque leaf will not rouse any presumption that it was executed as mandated by law. If only there is evidence of due execution of the cheque, the presumption u/s 139 of the Act can be drawn. That stage has not reached in this case.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - N K Balakrishnan - Full Document

Cc No.: 4531/12 Gambit Leasing vs Baldev Singh 1/16 on 9 July, 2012

17. Thus, any drawee who hands over a partially filled negotiable instrument to another person, does so, with implied authority to that person to complete the details that are left blank by the drawee. If such drawee claims that such person had no authority to complete the instrument or that instrument was completed contrary to his instructions or without his consent, the burden is upon such drawee to prove lack of consent. On this aspect It was observed by The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in LillyKutty v. Lawrance 2003 (2) DCR 610 "The mere fact that the payee's name and the amount shown are not in the handwriting of the drawer does not invalidate the cheque. No law provides in the case of cheques the entire body has to be written by the drawer only. What is material is the signature of the drawer and not the body of the instrument. Therefore when the drawer has issued the cheque whether the entire body was written by the drawer written beyond the instructions of the drawer, whether the amount is due or not, those and such matters are defenses which drawer has to raise and prove it. Therefore the mere fact that the payee's name and the amount shown in the cheque are in different handwriting is not a reason for not honouring the cheque by the Bank. Banks would normally see whether the instrument is that of the drawer and the cheque has been signed by the drawer himself. The burden is therefore entirely on the drawer of the cheque to establish that the date, amount and the payee's name are written by somebody else without the knowledge and consent of the drawer."
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cc No.: 4526/12 Gambit Leasing vs Baldev Singh 1/16 on 9 July, 2012

On this aspect It was observed by The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in LillyKutty v. Lawrance 2003 (2) DCR 610 "The mere fact that the payee's name and the amount shown are not in the handwriting of the drawer does not invalidate the cheque. No law provides in the case of cheques the entire body has to be written by the drawer only. What is material is the signature of the drawer and not the body of the instrument. Therefore when the drawer has issued the cheque whether the entire body was written by the drawer written beyond the instructions of the drawer, whether the amount is due or not, those and such matters are defenses which drawer has to raise and prove it. Therefore the mere fact that the payee's name and the amount shown in the cheque are in different handwriting is not a reason for not honouring the cheque by the Bank. Banks would normally see whether the instrument is that of the drawer and the cheque has been signed by the drawer himself. The burden is therefore entirely on the drawer of the cheque to establish that the date, amount and the payee's name are written by somebody else without the knowledge and consent of the drawer."
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Magistrate:Dwarka Courts:New Delhi vs Adarsh Kumar on 2 August, 2011

15. Moreover, in view of the fact that it has never been the case of the complainant that the cheque was given in blank by the accused and particulars were filled in by the complainant and in CC No:481/10 dated 02.08.2011 M/s Citi Financial Consumer Finance India Ltd V. Adarsh Kumar 24 of 27 view of the aforesaid discussions to the effect that the accused has failed to establish the liability of the accused as on the date of presentation of the cheque beyond reasonable doubts, the observations made in judgments in Ravi Chopra (Supra), Lillykutty (Supra), Madhukar V. Desai (Supra), Satish J. Shah (Supra) and ICDS Ltd. (Supra) do not help the complainant.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The Matter Of Collage Culture & Ors. vs . Apparel Export Promotion Counsil ... on 26 July, 2012

Para 20 : ­ "A collective reading of the above provisions shows that even under the scheme of the NI Act it is possible for the drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed by him to the payee and consent either impliedly or expressly to the said cheque being filled up at a subsequent point in time and presented for payment by the drawee. There is no provision in the NI Act which either defines the difference in the handwriting or the ink pertaining to the material particulars filled up in comparison with the signature thereon as constituting a 'material alteration' for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act. What however is essential is that the cheque must have been signed by the drawer. If the signature is altered or does not tally with the normal signature of the maker, that would be a material alteration. Therefore as long as the cheque has been signed by the drawer, the fact that the ink in which the name and figures are written or the date is filled up is different from the ink of the signature is not a material alteration for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act." Para 21 : ­ "The position in law has been explained in the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Lillykutty v. Lawrance 2003 (2) DCR 610 in the following words:
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

"Ramakrishna Urban Co­Operative ... vs . Sh. Rajendra Bhagchand Warma" on 30 November, 2011

Para 20 : ­ "A collective reading of the above provisions shows that even under the scheme of the NI Act it is possible for the drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed by him to the payee and consent either impliedly or expressly to the said cheque being filled up at a subsequent point in time and presented for payment by the drawee. There is no provision in the NI Act which either defines the difference in the handwriting or the ink pertaining to the material particulars filled up in comparison with the signature thereon as constituting a 'material alteration' for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act. What however is essential is that the cheque must have been signed by the drawer. If the signature is altered or does not tally with the normal signature of the maker, that would be a material alteration. Therefore as long as the cheque has been signed by the drawer, the fact that the ink in which the name and figures are written or the date is filled up is different from the ink of the signature is not a material alteration for the purposes of Section 87 NI Act." Para 21 : ­ "The position in law has been explained in the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Lillykutty v. Lawrance 2003 (2) DCR 610 in the following words:
Delhi District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next