Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 230 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Gorantla Venkateswara Rao vs Kolla Veera Raghava Rao And Anr. on 7 October, 2005

B. Raja Krishnaji vs Kadam Kondoji And State Of A.P. Rep. By ... on 4 December, 2007

In Gorantla Venkateswara Rao v. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao and Anr. 's case (1 supra), our High Court held that failure of accused in giving reply to legal notice issued by complainant is one of strong circumstances to draw an inference that accused borrowed amount from complainant and cheque was issued towards part payment of legally enforceable debt. Para.40 of the cited judgment needs to be noted and it is thus:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - B S Reddy - Full Document

Gorantla Venkateswara Rao vs . Kolla Veera Raghava Rao & Anr. 2006 on 17 July, 2013

In the case of Gorantla Venkateswara Rao Vs. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao & Anr. 2006 Crl. L.J. 1, relied upon by the complainant, it has been held that if the legal notice served to accused has not been replied then an inference can be drawn that accused has borrowed the amount from the complainant and cheque was issued for repayment of loan amount. In the present case also, accused has admitted that he has received the legal notice from the complainant but the same has not been replied by the accused. Accused has failed to give the reasons as to why the legal notice was not replied to complainant stating that he was under
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gorantla Venkateswara Rao vs . Kolla Veera Raghava Rao & Anr. 2006 on 17 July, 2013

In the case of Gorantla Venkateswara Rao Vs. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao & Anr. 2006 Crl. L.J. 1, relied upon by the complainant, it has been held that if the legal notice served to accused has not been replied then an inference can be drawn that accused has borrowed the amount from the complainant and cheque was issued for repayment of loan amount. In the present case also, accused has admitted that he has received the legal notice from the complainant but the same has not been replied by the accused. Accused has failed to give the reasons as to why the legal notice was not replied to complainant stating that he was under
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Eshwar Traders vs M/S. G.S & Company on 18 January, 2020

3. 2006 CRI.L.J. 1 in the case of Gorantla Venkateswara Rao V. Vs. Kolla Veera Raghava Rao and Anr. wherein it is held that, Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt - Failure of accused in giving reply to legal notice issued by complainant - Is one of strong circumstances to draw an inference that accused borrowed amount from complainant and cheque was issued towards part payment of legally enforceable debt. Evidence Act (1 of 1872, S.114.
Bangalore District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. Hanumanappa vs Sri. Jagadeesh on 10 August, 2021

Crl.A.No.2232/2019 20.3) In 2006 Crl.L.J 1 in a case of Gorantala Venkateshwara Rao v/s Kolla Veera Raghava Rao and another it is held that "(B) Negotiable Instrument Act (26 of 1881), S.138 -Dishonour of cheque-Legally enforceable debt-Failure of accused in giving reply to legal notice issued by complainant-Is one of the strong circumstances to draw an interference that accused borrowed amount from complainant and cheque was issued towards part payment of legally enforceable debt."
Bangalore District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next