Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1357 (1.48 seconds)
Documents citing Suo-Moto Case No. 01/2010 (In Re: Sugar ... vs 2.2.1 National Federation Of ... on 30 November, 2011

State Bank Of India vs Asha Rani Jindal on 28 February, 2025

21. It is also pertinent to note that the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that section 9 NI Act should be read with section 15/16 NI Act can- not be accepted as in the aforementioned case of 'Bank on India', Hon'ble High Court at Delhi had further held that " With due respect to Punjab & Haryana High Court, I consider that the view of Punjab &; Haryana High Court was not correct. Punjab & Haryana High Court had read Section 9 of the Negotiable Instrument Act along with Section 15 and 16 thereof. Section 9 of N.I. Act is an independent provision under Negotiable Instrument Act and it cannot be confused with the provision regarding endorsee or endorse- ment. 'Holder in due course' has to be considered independent to the en- dorsee or endorsement and where a cheque is issued by a Director to dis- charge the debt of the company payable towards the bank, I consider that the bank is 'holder in due course', even if there is no endorsement made on the CC No.10600/2016 State Bank of India Vs. Asha Rani Jindal pg. no. 13/25 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH TANWAR Date: TANWAR 2025.02.28 15:29:50 +0530 cheque, because, the moment amount of the cheque had gone to the account of the company, it was to go the bank towards the loan taken by the com- pany." (Emphasis is of the undersigned).
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Asha Rani Jindal on 28 February, 2025

21. It is also pertinent to note that the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that section 9 NI Act should be read with section 15/16 NI Act can- not be accepted as in the aforementioned case of 'Bank on India', Hon'ble High Court at Delhi had further held that " With due respect to Punjab & Haryana High Court, I consider that the view of Punjab &; Haryana High Court was not correct. Punjab & Haryana High Court had read Section 9 of the Negotiable Instrument Act along with Section 15 and 16 thereof. Section 9 of N.I. Act is an independent provision under Negotiable Instrument Act and it cannot be confused with the provision regarding endorsee or endorse- ment. 'Holder in due course' has to be considered independent to the en- dorsee or endorsement and where a cheque is issued by a Director to dis- charge the debt of the company payable towards the bank, I consider that the bank is 'holder in due course', even if there is no endorsement made on the cheque, because, the moment amount of the cheque had gone to the account CC No.11456/2016 State Bank of India Vs. Asha Rani Jindal pg. no. 13/25 Digitally signed by RISHABH TANWAR RISHABH Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Asha Rani Jindal on 28 February, 2025

21. It is also pertinent to note that the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that section 9 NI Act should be read with section 15/16 NI Act can- not be accepted as in the aforementioned case of 'Bank on India', Hon'ble High Court at Delhi had further held that " With due respect to Punjab & Haryana High Court, I consider that the view of Punjab &; Haryana High Court was not correct. Punjab & Haryana High Court had read Section 9 of the Negotiable Instrument Act along with Section 15 and 16 thereof. Section 9 of N.I. Act is an independent provision under Negotiable Instrument Act and it cannot be confused with the provision regarding endorsee or endorse- ment. 'Holder in due course' has to be considered independent to the en- dorsee or endorsement and where a cheque is issued by a Director to dis- charge the debt of the company payable towards the bank, I consider that the bank is 'holder in due course', even if there is no endorsement made on the cheque, because, the moment amount of the cheque had gone to the account CC No.11696/2016 State Bank of India Vs. Asha Rani Jindal pg. no. 13/25 Digitally signed by RISHABH TANWAR RISHABH Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Asha Rani Jindal on 28 February, 2025

21. It is also pertinent to note that the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that section 9 NI Act should be read with section 15/16 NI Act can- not be accepted as in the aforementioned case of 'Bank on India', Hon'ble High Court at Delhi had further held that " With due respect to Punjab & Haryana High Court, I consider that the view of Punjab &; Haryana High Court was not correct. Punjab & Haryana High Court had read Section 9 of the Negotiable Instrument Act along with Section 15 and 16 thereof. Section 9 of N.I. Act is an independent provision under Negotiable Instrument Act and it cannot be confused with the provision regarding endorsee or endorse- ment. 'Holder in due course' has to be considered independent to the en- dorsee or endorsement and where a cheque is issued by a Director to dis- charge the debt of the company payable towards the bank, I consider that the bank is 'holder in due course', even if there is no endorsement made on the cheque, because, the moment amount of the cheque had gone to the account CC No.13265/2016 State Bank of India Vs. Asha Rani Jindal pg. no. 13/25 Digitally signed by RISHABH RISHABH TANWAR TANWAR Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Asha Rani Jindal on 28 February, 2025

21. It is also pertinent to note that the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that section 9 NI Act should be read with section 15/16 NI Act can- not be accepted as in the aforementioned case of 'Bank on India', Hon'ble High Court at Delhi had further held that " With due respect to Punjab & Haryana High Court, I consider that the view of Punjab &; Haryana High Court was not correct. Punjab & Haryana High Court had read Section 9 of the Negotiable Instrument Act along with Section 15 and 16 thereof. Section 9 of N.I. Act is an independent provision under Negotiable Instrument Act and it cannot be confused with the provision regarding endorsee or endorse- ment. 'Holder in due course' has to be considered independent to the en- dorsee or endorsement and where a cheque is issued by a Director to dis- charge the debt of the company payable towards the bank, I consider that the bank is 'holder in due course', even if there is no endorsement made on the cheque, because, the moment amount of the cheque had gone to the account CC No.9019/2016 State Bank of India Vs. Asha Rani Jindal pg. no. 13/25 Digitally signed RISHABH by RISHABH TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2025.02.28 16:18:29 +0530 of the company, it was to go the bank towards the loan taken by the com- pany." (Emphasis is of the undersigned).
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Bank Of India vs Asha Rani Jindal on 28 February, 2025

21. It is also pertinent to note that the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused that section 9 NI Act should be read with section 15/16 NI Act can- not be accepted as in the aforementioned case of 'Bank on India', Hon'ble High Court at Delhi had further held that " With due respect to Punjab & Haryana High Court, I consider that the view of Punjab &; Haryana High Court was not correct. Punjab & Haryana High Court had read Section 9 of the Negotiable Instrument Act along with Section 15 and 16 thereof. Section 9 of N.I. Act is an independent provision under Negotiable Instrument Act and it cannot be confused with the provision regarding endorsee or endorse- ment. 'Holder in due course' has to be considered independent to the en- dorsee or endorsement and where a cheque is issued by a Director to dis- charge the debt of the company payable towards the bank, I consider that the bank is 'holder in due course', even if there is no endorsement made on the cheque, because, the moment amount of the cheque had gone to the account CC No.11700/2016 State Bank of India Vs. Smt. Asha Rani Jindal pg. no. 13/25 Digitally signed RISHABH by RISHABH TANWAR TANWAR Date: 2025.02.28 15:53:40 +0530 of the company, it was to go the bank towards the loan taken by the com- pany." (Emphasis is of the undersigned).
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dcit, Cochin vs Shri M George ( Mukkadayil Joseph ... on 31 October, 2023

525/Coch/2011 (AY 2006-07) Dy. CIT v. M.J. George could the matter be determined. On the contrary, much less explain the aforesaid incongruities and inconsistencies that his case entails, the assesseesells his land for a princely sum, realizing it's commercial value, and yet claims to have sold it as an agricultural land. His entire case is thus much ado about nothing. Why, even the valuation of Rs.50,000 per cent (of land alone) per valuation dated 05.01.2006, i.e., nearly ΒΌ the price realized, proving the former as a gross under-valuation, is inconceivable considering the agricultural income of Rs. 5,000 to 10,000 per acre. The price difference (i.e., at Rs.187.543 lakhs per cent as against the cost of Rs.421 per cent), even accounting for the time difference, is mind boggling, which can be explained only in terms of change in the character of land, implying change in its user.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next