Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing B.M. Basavaraj vs Srinivas S. Datta on 5 April, 2016

He Relied Upon Judgement In The Cases Of ... vs . Vinkar on 28 January, 2022

40. It is a mandatory requirement under law for the complainant to satisfy the requirement of Section 138 proviso (a) to (c) and only thereupon presumption under Section 139 NI Act arises in favour of complainant, driving the accused to rebut such presumption. Learned counsel for the complainant relied on the judgment in the cases of the Rangappa vs. Mohan, AIR 2010 SC 1898 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, B.M. Basavaraj vs. Srinivas S. Datta, IV (2016) SLT 155 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Mukesh Kumar vs. State & Anr, 237 (2017) DLT 657 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, V.S. Yadav vs. Reena, 172 (2010) DLT 561 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Deepak Kumar vs. State & Anr., 2019 (3) DCR 137 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Shri Daneshwari Traders vs. Sanjay Jain & Ors, 2020 (1) JCC to Ct. Case No.5000978/2016 Page 33 of 35 buttress his argument with regard to presumption under Section 139 NI Act which would act in favour of the complainant on the admission made by the accused with regard to signature upon the cheques in issue. However, in the present case, even though signature on the cheques in issue are admitted, but the cheques have not been issued to the complainant in his personal capacity and he is not even the payee or holder in due course qua the cheques in issue and moreover, mandatory requirement under law for the complainant to satisfy the requirement of Section 138 proviso (a) to (c) has not been met, as observed earlier. Hence, presumption under Section 139 NI Act would not arise in favour of the complainant and the said judgments relied upon by the complainant though pertinent, would not be respectfully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Delhi District Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. The Great Indian Craft vs . Vakil Khan Cc No. 5002848/16 Page No. ... on 30 April, 2019

In the case of B.M. Basavaraj v. Srinivas S. Datta (IV(2016) SLT 155), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has set aside the order of trial court and the Hon'ble High Court that had acquitted the accused primarily on the ground that the complainant had not furnished any document to prove that it had actually supplied the material to the accused as per the agreement.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Presently At vs M/S B.D. Jain Trading Company on 4 September, 2019

23. Similarly, the trial court has considered submissions of appellant regarding absence of signatures of respondent on the invoices and had relied upon the case of B.M. Basavaraj Vs Srinivas S. Datta IV (2016) SLT 155, wherein it was held "It is not even necessary for the appellant/complainant to produce any document to the effect that it had fulfilled the obligation under the agreement which was entered into between the parties. The case was found on the dishonour of two cheques and not on the basis of the said agreement. Further, it was a civil suit which was filed on the basis of said agreement or any demand was raised for money on the ground that the agreement had been fulfilled. The case is that the payment was not released. In the legal notice, specific averment made by the appellant/complainant that appellant/complainant had discharged his obligation under the contract and only thereupon the cheque was issued and the respondent/accused had not even replied to the said notice". Hence trial court rightly observed Ajay Marwah Vs M/s B.D. Jain Trading Company Page no. 13 of 17 CA No. 56/19 that absence of signatures of complainant on invoices does not rebut presumption under section 118 and 139 NI Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rakesh Saini vs . Sadanand Yadav on 18 November, 2019

In the case of B.M. Basavaraj v. Srinivas S. Datta (IV(2016) SLT 155), Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has set aside the order of trial court and the Hon'ble High Court that had dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that the complainant had not furnished any document to prove that it had actually supplied the material to the accused as per the agreement. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that "it is not even necessary for the appellant/complainant to produce any document to the effect that it had fulfilled the obligation under the agreement which was entered into between the parties. The case was found on the dishonour of two cheques and not on the basis of the said agreement. Further, it was a civil suit which was filed on the basis of said agreement or any demand was raised for money on the ground that the agreement had been fulfilled. The case is that the payment was not released. In the legal notice, specific averment made by the appellant/complainant that appellant/complainant had discharged his obligation under the contract and only thereupon the cheque was issued and the respondent/accused had not even replied to the said notice".
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajinder Kumar Nagpal vs . Usha Adhana Page 1 Of 26 on 28 July, 2022

21. Before moving to the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that ld. counsel for complainant has relied upon the several judgments of Hon'ble superior courts in support of his case, namely, B.M.Baswaraj vs. Sriniwas S. Datta, MANU/SC/0686/2016, Naveen Garg Vs. Rajni Garg, 222 (2015) DLT 797, Triyamabak S Hedge Vs. Sripad MANU/SC/0690/2021, K.N.Beena Vs. Muniyappan & Ors MANU/SC/0661/2001, Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel Vs State of Gujrat MANU/SC/0393/2019, T.P.Murugan (Dead) through LRs & Ors vs. Bojan MANU/SC/0795/2018 and Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors MANU/SC/0521/2020.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajinder Singh @Raju vs Balvinder Kaur on 15 December, 2017

In coming to this conclusion, I also find support from judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court given in a case titled as B.M. Basavaraj Vs. Sriniwas S. Datta, Vol. IV (2016) SLT 155 (Supreme Court). In this judgment also, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while deciding criminal appeal filed by the appellant against the respondent and while setting aside orders of courts below, also held that the respondent shall pay to the appellant the amount due with interest @9%.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next