Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 265 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Sanjay Arora vs Monika Singh on 31 May, 2017

Shyoraj Singh Bhati vs Ankur Gupta on 19 September, 2023

39. Also, the judgement Sanjay Arora versus Monika Singh, supra, is not applicable in the given case as the Accused has successfully created doubt on the version of the Complainant and has led the court to believe that the existence of consideration is doubtful in view of the discussion made above by pointing out the glaring material inconsistencies in the version of the Complainant himself.
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjeev Mishra vs . Lalit Kumar Cc No. 9430/2017 Page No. 1 ... on 27 July, 2022

28. Ld. Counsel for the accused has also argued that the cheque in question was given as security cheque to the complainant by the accused. However, this arguments of Ld. Counsel for accused is also bereft of any merit as accused has not denied taking of loan from the complainant and handing over the cheque to him, though as security cheque. In view of the same, onus was on the accused to show the repayment of the loan and misuse of cheque. Reliance in this regard can also be placed on decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in Sanjay Arora V. Monika Singh, Crl. Appeal No. 98/2017, dated 31.05.2017, wherein it was observed:
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajeev Seharawat vs Narender Sharma on 31 October, 2018

17. It was argued by Counsel for the accused that the complainant has not examined his father as a witness in the case. It was also contended that the complainant has not disclosed his source of income for providing loan of Rs.2,47,000/-. It was also argued by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the complainant has settled the matter for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- in the Mediation Centre vide settlement agreement dated 19.11.2015. It was also argued that he has not placed on record any agreement or receipt to show that the accused had been paying interest to him on the loan amount and thus, all these facts create doubt on his case. I do not find merits in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused. Non examination of witnesses and non filing of documents are not fatal to the case of the complainant. For this, I rely upon one judgment Sanjay Arora v. Monika Singh [2017 SCC Online Del 8897]. In that case, it was held that "para 24. mere admission of the complainant that he was earning only Rs.12,000/- per month from small business or his failure to file income tax returns, or his omission to produce the bank pass book or to examine Chhotu as a witness in corroboration, are inconsequential. In order to rebut the statutory presumption, it was the burden of the respondent to prove the facts she had pleaded in answer to the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.". Thus, there is no force in the submission of Counsel for the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Babar Azad vs Mohd. Afroj on 20 November, 2018

For this, reliance be placed on one judgment Sanjay Arora v. Monika Singh [2017 SCC Online Del 8897]. In that case, it was held that "para 24. mere admission of the complainant that he was earning only Rs.12,000/- per month from small business or his failure to file income tax returns, or his omission to produce the bank pass book or to examine Chhotu as a witness in corroboration, are inconsequential. In order to rebut the statutory presumption, it was the burden of the respondent to prove the facts she had pleaded in answer to the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.". Thus, there is no force in the submission of Counsel for the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surinder Kumar Arora vs Vinod Khurana on 29 November, 2018

17. It was argued by Counsel for the accused that the complainant, in his cross-examination, has stated that there is no witness to the transaction between the complainant and the accused. It was also argued by him that the complainant has failed to prove sources of funds to advance loan of such a huge amount. It was also argued that the complainant has not placed on record any agreement or receipt to show that the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was advanced to the accused and thus, all these facts create doubt on his case. I do not find merits in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused. Non examination of witnesses and non filing of documents are not fatal to the case of the complainant. For this, reliance be placed on one judgment Sanjay Arora v. Monika Singh [2017 SCC Online Del 8897]. In that case, it was held that "para 24. mere admission of the complainant that he was earning only Rs.12,000/- per month from small business or his failure to file income tax returns, or his omission to produce the bank pass book or to examine Chhotu as a witness in corroboration, are inconsequential. In order to rebut the statutory presumption, it was the burden of the respondent to prove the facts she had pleaded in answer to the notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C.". Thus, there is no force in the submission of Counsel for the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Parida vs Gopal Jha on 5 December, 2018

7. While getting his plea recorded to the notice u/s 251 Cr. PC, the accused stated that "I had given the above said cheques to one Nathuni Sharma and the same have been misused." In his answer to question no. 1 in the statement u/s 313 Cr. PC, he stated that he had given the cheques to Mr. Nathuni Sharma in the year 2012 without filling the name of the drawee. While deposing as DW­1, he stated that he had taken a friendly loan of Rs. 3,00,000/­ from Mr. Nathuni Sharma in different installments from 2011 to 2013 and had given 17 cheques to him   on   different   dates   during   this   period.   Considering   these   facts,   it   is established that the cheques bear the signatures of the accused and the amount has also been filled by him. Even if it is accepted that he did not fill the name of the payee or the date (though, he has not specifically stated that date was not filled by him), the presumption u/s 139 NI Act r/w 118 NI Act was against him. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgments by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in  Sanjay Arora vs Monika Singh  2017 SCC Online Del.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next