Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1134 (5.43 seconds)
Documents citing Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant on 7 March, 2022

Shiv Avtar Tyagi vs Mahinder Kapoor on 29 August, 2024

26.Coming to the present case, the complainant has relied upon the photocopy of receipt dated 06.10.2020 Mark-CW1/F (later on Ex. DW2/C1) and photocopy of receipt dated 17.07.2020 Mark-CW1/G (later on Ex. DW2/C2) in his pre-summoning evidence as well as post-summoning evidence. It is pertinent to observe here that the accused has not raised any objection as to CC No. 2269/2021 Shiv Avtar Tyagi Vs. Mahinder Kapoor Page 13 of 24 the mode of proof of the said receipts at the time of framing of Notice against accused U/s 251 Cr.P.C. nor during the examination of CW1 or during his statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Since, there was no objection on behalf of the accused, no occasion arose for the complainant to explain the loss of original receipts as neither veracit Tedhi Singh Vs. Narayan Dass Mahant Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2022 y of the receipts nor mode of proof of such receipts were ever assailed by the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shiv Avtar Tyagi vs Mahinder Kapoor on 29 August, 2024

d) DW-1 is an interested witness for he is brother-in-law of the accused, cannot be relied upon. The accused has not been able to raise any probable defence to rebut the presumptions and thus, the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 138 NI Act. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Tedhi Singh Vs. Narayan Dass Mahant Criminal Appeal No.362 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.1963 OF 2019) relied upon.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hari Singh Dron vs Jawahar Singh on 24 January, 2024

9. It is indeed true that there is some merit in the complaint of Ms Sangeeta Bharti, learned counsel for the appellant that in the impugned judgment [Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 2336] the High Court has not appreciated the real purpose of examining DW 1 to DW 4. She is also correct when she drew our attention to the accounts of Gramin Bank i.e. Gramin Bank, Kullu to show that before 5-8-2011 the appellant had stopped operating the account in the said bank and a very small and ignorable amount alone was available in the said account.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharambir Singh vs K.K Sharma on 20 September, 2024

9. It is indeed true that there is some merit in the complaint of Ms Sangeeta Bharti, learned counsel for the appellant that in the impugned judgment [Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass, 2018 CT No. 469491/2016 u/s 138 NI Act, Dharambir Singh Vs. K. K. Sharma Page no. 21 of 24 SCC OnLine HP 2336] the High Court has not appreciated the real purpose of examining DW 1 to DW 4. She is also correct when she drew our attention to the accounts of Gramin Bank i.e. Gramin Bank, Kullu to show that before 5- 8-2011 the appellant had stopped operating the account in the said bank and a very small and ignorable amount alone was available in the said account.
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lakhan Singh vs Pawan Kumar Gupta on 29 August, 2022

Reliance can also be placed on the judgment titled Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 275 , wherein it has been held that to displace the burden of proof stacked against him, the accused has the right to demonstrate that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to advance the subject loan. By eliciting the testimony from the complainant to the effect that he was unaware of his own monthly income, both at the time when Digitally signed by MEDHA MEDHA ARYA Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri.Eashwar Rao vs Maruthi Merchants Fianance Company on 10 January, 2023

In the instant case on hand by scrutinizing the entire cross examination of PW.1, no where it has been suggested to PW.1 about how the cheque in question has gone to the possession of the complainant and also no suggestion has been made to PW.1 stating that, for the repayment of a sum of Rs.3,26,000/- as contended by the accused himself or for the payment of Rs.50,000/- as per Ex.D.2, the accused has issued cheque at Ex.P.1 as a security. Apart from that, it is not the case of the accused that, he has lost the cheque in question and the same has been misused by the complainant for wrongful gain. During the entire marathon cross examination of PW.1 only the questions with regard to the avocation of the complainant, the income of the complainant and her capacity to advance questioned loan amount has been asked and in respect of 37 C.C.1808/2019 such questions, of course the complainant have not produced any documentary evidences before the court, but the question asked to PW.1, which are listed above themselves shall not became probable defense of the accused . The accused shall put his defense contending and explaining that as to how the cheque in question has went to the custody of complainant and to prove the same either by producing his own evidence or by extracting during the cross examination of PW.1 only there upon the onus shifts on the complainant to establish and prove before the court beyond all reasonable doubts with regard to alleged transaction of the case, her source of income and her financial capacity to lent loan of Rs.14,00,000/- which is in question. Thus, the judgment of Hon'ble Culcutta High Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand. From the ratio in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tedhi Singh Vs. Narayan Das Mahant and the recent verdict of the Hon'ble Culcutta High Court in the 38 C.C.1808/2019 case of Subrata Bose Vs. Mithu, the accused has failed to raise probable defense before the court and thereby also failed to prove the said probable defense on preponderance of probabilities. Therefore, the question of shifting onus on the complainant does not arise at all. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the affirmative.
Bangalore District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next