Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 82 (3.21 seconds)
Documents citing Sampelly Satanarayana Rao vs M/S Indian Renewable Energy ... on 8 May, 2014

Sri. Venugopal.K vs Sri. Ashok Kumar H.S on 4 December, 2020

26. It is also relevant here to mention that, the Accused/DW.1 in his evidence has taken specific defence that, the cheque in question and other cheque were issued to the complainant as a security towards the loan amount of Rs.1 Lakh availed on 2.8.2014 and he had repaid the said loan amount along with interest to the complainant but the complainant did not return the said cheuqes to him and has filled the cheque in question and misused it. As it is already held in the above that, in support of his evidence nothing has been produced before the court to show that, he has given the cheque in 53 C.C.No.941/2019 J question on 2.8.2014 to the complainant, except the oral evidence nothing has been placed before the court. Even for sake of discussion, if the defence of the Accused i.e. the cheque in question has been given to the complainant towards security of the alleged loan amount of Rs.1 Lakh is taken into consideration, in such circumstances also it attracts the offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act, unless the accused proved his defence, in this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India reported in (2016) 10 SCC 458 in the case of Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " Even cheque issued as security for payment of loan installments also covered under the purview of sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act" In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 235 in the case of Lale Patel Vs. Sharanabasappa., wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that " NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 54 C.C.No.941/2019 J 1881­ section 138 - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds ­ Plea of accused that he had given a blank cheque signed as security for a transaction and complainant filled up the contents and denied existence of any debt or loan - Conviction by Trial court ­ Affirmed by Appellate Court - Revision against. Hence the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision clearly held that, if the Accused has taken defence that, blank signed cheque has been issued as a security for transaction and the complainant filled up the contents and the accused denied the existence of debt or loan in such circumstances it is for the accused to prove his/her defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence, if the Accused has not proved the same in such circumstances, it cannot be held that, the cheque in question was issued for the purpose of security in connection with the alleged transaction.
Bangalore District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri.T.C. Sathish Kumar vs Jatti Automobiles on 28 September, 2021

29. It is also relevant here to mention that, the 70 C.C.No..2871/2014 J Accused/DW.1 in his evidence has also taken specific defence that, the cheques in question were issued to the complainant towards security for the purpose of consolidated incidental expenses of RTO official which was accumulated in their office with respect to the RTO officer Mr. Palanetra to process the registration of vehicles, but, in support of defence of the accused, nothing has been produced before the court to prove their defence except the oral evidence. Even for sake of discussion if the defence of the Accused i.e. the cheques in question have been given to the complainant towards security for the purpose of consolidated incidental expenses of RTO official which was accumulated in their office with respect to the RTO officer Mr. Palanetra to process the registration of vehicles, in such circumstances also it attracts the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act, unless the accused proved his defence, in this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India reported in (2016) 10 SCC 458 in the case of Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " Even 71 C.C.No..2871/2014 J cheque issued as security for payment of loan installments also covered under the purview of sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act" In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 235 in the case of Lale Patel Vs. Sharanabasappa., wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that " NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881­ section 138 - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds ­ Plea of accused that he had given a blank cheque signed as security for a transaction and complainant filled up the contents and denied existence of any debt or loan - Conviction by Trial court ­ Affirmed by Appellate Court - Revision against.
Bangalore District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. M/S. Annapoorna Power vs M/S. V.R. Constructions on 7 April, 2021

29. It is also relevant here to mention that, the Accused/DW.1 in his evidence has also taken specific defence that, the cheques in question were issued to the complainant as security towards supply of centering materials but the complainant did not return the said cheques to him an even inspite of rent amount paid and returned the centering materials but misused the cheques in question. As it is already held in the above that, in 58 C.C.No. 6714/2016 J support of defence of the accused, nothing has been produced before the court to show that, the accused has paid entire rent amount and returned the materials to the complainant, except the oral evidence nothing has been placed before the court. Even for sake of discussion, if the defence of the Accused No.2 i.e. the cheques in question have been given to the complainant towards security for supply of centering materials, in such circumstances also it attracts the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act, unless the accused proved his defence, in this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India reported in (2016) 10 SCC 458 in the case of Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " Even cheque issued as security for payment of loan installments also covered under the purview of sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act" In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 235 in the case of Lale Patel Vs. Sharanabasappa., wherein the Hon'ble 59 C.C.No. 6714/2016 J High Court held that " NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881­ section 138 - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds ­ Plea of accused that he had given a blank cheque signed as security for a transaction and complainant filled up the contents and denied existence of any debt or loan - Conviction by Trial court ­ Affirmed by Appellate Court - Revision against. Hence the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision clearly held that, if the Accused has taken defence that, blank signed cheques has been issued as a security for transaction and the complainant filled up the contents and the accused denied the existence of debt or liability in such circumstances it is for the accused to prove his/her defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence, if the Accused has not proved the same in such circumstances, it cannot be held that, the cheques in question were issued for the purpose of security in connection with the alleged transaction.
Bangalore District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr.S.N.Anegundi vs M/S. Blue Valley Properties on 29 February, 2020

20. It is also relevant here to mention that, the Accused No.3/DW.1 in his evidence has taken specific defence that, the cheque in question had issued to the complainant as a security as per the terms of MOU i.e Ex.P.9 in the year 2007 and he had signed on the cheque and written the amount in the words and figures. The Accused No.3/DW.1 has also stated that, the UTI bank was not in existence in the year 2013, therefore there is no possibility of issuing the cheque in dispute in the year 2013 to the complainant. In support of his evidence has produced Ex.D.2 and D.3 i.e., the certificates issued by the Axis Bank, Cox Town, Bengaluru. But during the course of cross-examination of the complainant, nothing has been elicited to believe the defence of the Accused that, the cheque in question has been issued as a security in terms of the Ex.P.9 MOU in 45 C.C.No.21191/2014 J the year 2007 to the complainant. Even on perusal of Ex.P.9 it is nowhere mentioned or referred that, the cheque in question has been issued by the Accused in favour of the complainant as a security in terms of Ex.P.9, if really the cheque in question was issued in the year 2007 to the complainant, definitely the same would have been referred in the MOU i.e Ex.P.9 but no such reference has been made in MOU, on this count also the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one. Even for sake of discussion, if the defence of the Accused i.e. the cheque in question has been given to the complainant towards security of the investment invested by the complainant as per MOU i.e Ex.P.9 is considered as true , in such circumstances also it attracts the offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act, in this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India reported in (2016) 10 SCC 458 in the case of Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " Even cheque issued as security for payment of loan installments also covered under the purview of sec. 138 of Negotiable 46 C.C.No.21191/2014 J Instruments Act" In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 235 in the case of Lale Patel Vs. Sharanabasappa., wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that " NEGOTIABLE ISNTRUCEMTNS ACT, 1881- section 138 - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds - Plea of accused that he had given a blank cheque signed as security for a transaction and complainant filled up the contents and denied existence of any debt or loan - Conviction by Trial court - Affirmed by Appellate Court - Revision against. Hence the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision clearly held that, if the Accused has taken defence that, the a blank signed cheque has been issued as a security for transaction and the complainant filled up the contents and the accused denied the existence of debt or loan in such circumstances it is for the accused to prove his defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence, if the Accused has not proved the same in such circumstances, it cannot be held that, the cheque in question was issued for the purpose of security in connection with the transaction.
Bangalore District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Priya vs Smt.Tulasi.S @ Tulasiyamma on 12 November, 2020

27. It is also relevant here to mention that, the Accused/DW.1 in her evidence has taken specific defence that, the cheque in question had issued to the complainant as a security towards the loan amount of Rs.1 Lakh availed on 4.7.2011 and she had repaid the said loan amount to the complainant but the complainant has filled the cheque and missued it. In support of her evidence nothing has been produced before the court to show that, she has given the cheque in question on 4.7.2011 to the complainant, except the oral evidence nothing has been placed before the court. If really the cheque in question was issued in the year 2011 to the complainant, definitely the same would have been intimated to the complainant by giving reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant but no such 53 C.C.No.14939/2015 reply has been given by the accused despite service of the legal notice on her, on this count also the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one. Even for sake of discussion, if the defence of the Accused i.e. the cheque in question has been given to the complainant towards security of the alleged loan amount of Rs.1 Lakh is taken into consideration, in such circumstances also it attracts the offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act, unless the accused proved her defence, in this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India reported in (2016) 10 SCC 458 in the case of Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " Even cheque issued as security for payment of loan installments also covered under the purview of sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act" In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 235 in the case of Lale Patel Vs. Sharanabasappa., wherein the Hon'ble High Court 54 C.C.No.14939/2015 held that " NEGOTIABLE ISNTRUCEMTNS ACT, 1881­ section 138 - Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency of funds ­ Plea of accused that he had given a blank cheque signed as security for a transaction and complainant filled up the contents and denied existence of any debt or loan - Conviction by Trial court ­ Affirmed by Appellate Court - Revision against. Hence the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision clearly held that, if the Accused has taken defence that, blank signed cheque has been issued as a security for transaction and the complainant filled up the contents and the accused denied the existence of debt or loan in such circumstances it is for the accused to prove his/her defence by producing cogent and convincible evidence, if the Accused has not proved the same in such circumstances, it cannot be held that, the cheque in question was issued for the purpose of security in connection with the alleged transaction.
Bangalore District Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. K. Vijay Kumar vs Sri. K. Shekar on 21 September, 2021

It is also relevant here to 60 C.C.No. 1117/2018 J refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex court held in (2016) 10 SCC 458 in the case of Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " (a) Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 - S.138 - If on the date of the cheque liability or debt exist or the amount has become legally recoverable­ S.138 will apply - not otherwise". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay decided in CRM­M No.2607/2018 (O & M) dated: 27.8.2019 in the case of Kailash vati Vs. M/s. Ludhiyana Beverages., wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that " A. Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 - S.138 and 6 - Dishonour of cheque­ date of drawn - Determination of - The date on which the cheque is drawn has to be with reference to the date mentioned in the column in the cheque and not the date on which it was signed­ Date when the cheque is drawn is not defined in the act - If date of singing cheque is accepted then all post dated cheques cannot be treated as valid cheques 61 C.C.No. 1117/2018 J within and drawer of cheques would stand absolved from criminal prosecution if cheques are presented after three months of the date on which signature were appended". Hence in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, it can be held that, the liability of the debt existed as on the date mentioned on the cheque not as on the date of signature on the cheque, even for sake of discussion the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Accused taken into consideration but in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court of Bombay it is to be considered that the date on which cheques were drawn has to be with reference to the date mentioned in the cheques but not the date on which they were signed., therefore the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defence that, the complainant has misused the blank cheques issued by the accused cannot be acceptable one.
Bangalore District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. K. Vijay Kumar vs Sri. K. Sengodan on 21 September, 2021

It is also relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex court held in (2016) 10 SCC 458 in the case of Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " (a) Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 - S.138 - If on the date of the cheque liability or debt exist or the amount has become legally recoverable­ S.138 will apply - not otherwise". In another decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay decided in CRM­M No.2607/2018 (O & M) dated: 27.8.2019 in the case of Kailash vati Vs. M/s. Ludhiyana Beverages., wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that " A. Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 - S.138 and 6 - Dishonour of cheque­ date of drawn - Determination of - The date on which the cheque is drawn has to be with reference to the date mentioned in the column in the cheque and not the date on which it was signed­ Date when the cheque is drawn is not defined in the act - If date of singing cheque is accepted then all post dated 64 C.C.No. 1118/2018 J cheques cannot be treated as valid cheques within and drawer of cheques would stand absolved from criminal prosecution if cheques are presented after three months of the date on which signature were appended". Hence in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, it can be held that, the liability of the debt existed as on the date mentioned on the cheque not as on the date of signature on the cheque, even for sake of discussion the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Accused taken into consideration but in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and High Court of Bombay it is to be considered that the date on which cheques were drawn has to be with reference to the date mentioned in the cheques but not the date on which they were signed., therefore the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defence that, the complainant has misused the blank cheques issued by the accused in the year 2005 cannot be acceptable one.
Bangalore District Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.L.Y. Manjula vs Ms. Vinutha .N on 9 November, 2021

29. It is also relevant here to mention that, the Accused and her mother ie DW.1 and DW.2 in their evidence have specifically taken defence that, the cheques in question and stamp paper were collected by the complainant as blank signed cheques and stamp paper from the accused and her mother as security towards the payment of chit bid amount to the mother of the accused, but the complainant misused the said blank signed cheques and stamp paper by filling up all the particulars in the cheques and stamp paper and has presented for encashment and filed false complaint against accused. As it is already held in the above that, in support of defence of the accused, nothing has been produced before the court to prove her defence, except the oral evidence nothing has been placed before the court. Even for sake of discussion, if the defence of the Accused i.e. the cheques in question and stamp paper have been given to the complainant towards security of the chit bid amount received by the mother of the accused unless and until the said defence is proved by the accused it cannot be held 74 C.C.No. 12555/2016 J that, the cheques and stamp paper have been given for that purpose, in such circumstances also it attracts the offence U/s.138 of N.I.Act, in this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India reported in (2016) 10 SCC 458 in the case of Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Ltd, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " Even cheque issued as security for payment of loan installments also covered under the purview of sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act".
Bangalore District Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Company Private Limited vs Nos.3 And 4.) on 31 December, 2021

The decision in Sampelly Styanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency 45 CC No.25456/2009 SCC.H-25 Limited, the Hon'ble Apex court was dealing with the quash petition and hence the facts and circumstances of that case and this case are different. In this case it is clear from the evidence that on the date of presentation of cheques in question the loan became due and hence the entire arguments of the counsel for the accused is not helpful to the defence of the accused as the accused have utterly failed to prove their defence who themselves admitted the due repayment of bridge loan and issue of cheques.
Bangalore District Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next