Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (3.98 seconds)
Documents citing Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan vs V. Radhakrishnan on 6 April, 1998

H T Kenchegowda vs S D Umesh S/O Dibbegowda on 23 April, 2019

In this aspect the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the cheque was dishonored only for the reason that the accused have closed account and not for the material alteration and the issuance of the cheque was not denied and in support of his case, he has relied upon the judgment of division bench Hon'ble Kerala High Court, Division 14 Bench in the case of Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan Vs. Radhakrishnan reported in 1998 CRI.L.J.3228.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - K Natarajan - Full Document

M/S Times Innovative Media Ltd vs Serve And Volley Outdoor Advertising ... on 29 October, 2018

In the case of HitenBhai Parekh Proprietor-Parekh Enterprises Vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in Manu/GJ/0508/2009, the Gujarath High Court referring to Bhaskaran Crl.P.No.6613/2011 19 Chandrasekharan's case (supra) was pleased to hold at para No.10 of the judgment that when a cheque bearing only signature of the drawer is delivered and received by a payee for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability, there is an implied authority for the person receiving such cheque to complete it by filling the blanks and the amount having been filled up under such implied authority would be the amount intended by him to be paid thereunder.
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - H P Sastry - Full Document

Sri R Rajappa vs Sri K Ashok Rai on 11 June, 2021

As observed, in the instant case, the accused nowhere has stated that he had any objection for the complainant filling up the date in the cheque. It is on a similar point, the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan's case (supra) was pleased to observe that, when a cheque is issued for a valid consideration with no dispute regarding the signature, amount and name, it cannot be said that, putting a date on the cheque by the payee who is the holder of the cheque in-due-course would amount to material alteration rendering the instrument void.
Karnataka High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - H P Sastry - Full Document

Jyothis Kuries And Loans vs George Jose on 2 July, 2003

In the decision reported in 1998 (1) KLT 881 (Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan v. Radhakrishnan) a Division Bench of this Court has held that once there is admission of issuance of a cheque or the same is proved to have been issued, presumption under Section 118 of the N.I. Act is raised that it is supported by consideration and the burden is upon the defendant to rebut that presumption and to prove failure of consideration.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Lillykutty vs Lawrance on 29 August, 2003

Admittedly signature shown in the cheques is that of the drawer but his case is that he had not filled up the cheque. It was alleged that payees name as well as the amounts shown in the cheques are not in the handwriting of the drawer and therefore those might have been filled up by the plaintiff to lay a claim on the cheques signed by the drawer. The question is whether in a case where the payee puts the date in a cheque signed by the drawer, such cheque could be encashed came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court to which one of us (Radhakrishnan, J.) was a party in Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan v. Radhakrishnan (1998 (1) KLT 881). The Division Bench held that when a cheque is issued for consideration and there is no dispute regarding signature, amount and name, it cannot be said that by putting a date on the cheque by the payee who is the holder of the cheque in due course would amount to material alteration rendering the instrument void. When cheque is admittedly issued with blank date, and when the drawer has no objection with regard to the name, amount and signature, it can be presumed that there is an implied consent for putting the date as and when required by the payee and get it encashed unless the contrary is proved. The burden is entirely on the drawer of the cheque to establish that the payee had no authority to put the date and amount and then encash the cheque. There are instances where blank cheques are issued to the payee. If any amount is due to the payee from the drawer of the cheque and that amount is shown in the cheque which is admittedly signed by the drawer, the presumption could be drawn that the cheque has been validly issued. An implied consent can be presumed in such a situation. Once a cheque is drawn by a person on an account maintained by the Bank and is returned with the endorsement "funds insufficient", it amounts to dishonour within the meaning of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Section 138 confirms the presumption provided under Section 118 (a) and 118(g) of the Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 152 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Ramachandran vs Dinesan on 4 November, 2004

The principle laid down in that decision was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan v. Radhakrishnan, 1998 (1) KLT 881, it was held that alteration of the date in the cheque may be material alteration. In this case the amount written in figures were corrected. That will amount to material alteration. So, I hold that there is material alteration of Ext.Pl cheque.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - K P Nair - Full Document

Laxminivas Agarwal vs Andhra Semi Conductors Pvt. Ltd. And ... on 23 December, 2005

(4) In Bhaskaran Chandrasekharan v. Radhakrishnan 1998 Cri LJ 3228 wherein the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court held when a cheque is issued for valid consideration, with no dispute regarding the signature, amount and name, it cannot be said that putting a date on the cheque by the payee who is the holder of the cheque in due course would amount to material alteration rendering the instrument void. In fact, there is no material alteration. When a cheque is admittedly issued with blank date, and when the payee has no objection with regard to the name, amount and signature, it can be presumed that there is an implied consent for putting the date as and when required by the beneficiary, and get it encashed. In other words, when the date is put by the payee, or the drawer on the cheque the presumptions under Section 118 of the Act would arise. The burden is, therefore, entirely on the drawer of the cheque to establish that the payee had no authority to put the date and encash the cheque. It is further held therein that when the drawer issued cheque as security for loan transaction and there is no dispute regarding the signature, amount and name shown in the cheque, it can be presumed that the cheque was supported by consideration.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 13 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next