Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1042 (3.14 seconds)
Documents citing Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao vs Indian Renewable Energy Development ... on 19 September, 2016

5. Venkat Vara Prasad Pidikiti vs The State Of West Bengal on 1 December, 2017

On the contrary, Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited (Supra) that the factual aspects/factual defences of the petitioners as to if the cheques were given as security or not or whether there was outstanding liability or not is a question of fact which can be determined only by the trial Court after recording evidences of the parties. Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically observed that the High Court should not have expressed it's view on the disputed questions of fact in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to come to a conclusion that the offence is made out and the High Court has erred in law in coming into factual aspects of the matter which were not admitted between the parties. In other words, while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, all such factual aspects cannot be scrutinized meticulously so as to come to logical conclusion that the offence has not been made out by the complainant/opposite party against the present petitioner by filing such petition of complaint.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - D P Dey - Full Document

Deep Plastic Industries vs Deep Rubber Products Thro' Bharatbhai ... on 1 July, 2021

In the matter before the Apex Court in case of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao vs Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited the question for consideration was whether in the given set of facts, the dishonour of a post-dated cheque given for repayment of loan, the installment described as a "security" in the loan agreement is covered by Section 138 of the N.I.Act or not. The company there was engaged in the field of power generation, respondent was engaged in development of renewable energy and is a Government of India enterprise. Vide the loan agreement, the respondent agreed to advance loan of Rs.11.50 crore for setting up of 4.00 MW Biomass based Power Project in the State of Page 16 of 35 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 15 20:20:09 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/1498/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/07/2021 Andhra Pradesh. The agreement recorded that post-dated cheques towards payment of installment of loan (principal and interest) were given by way of security. The cheques carried different dates depending on the dates when the installments were due and upon dishonour, the complaints came to be filed by the respondent in the court of learned Magistrate at New Delhi.
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Dr. Sundarakrishnan G vs M/S. Reliance Home Finance Pvt. Ltd on 21 December, 2021

In Sampelly Satyanarayanan Rao vs. Indian Renewable Energy and Development Agency Limited [(2016) 10 SCC 458] the Honourable Apex Court has held that Whether the cheques were given as security or not, or whether there was outstanding liability or not is a question of fact which could have been determined only by the trial court after recording evidence of the parties. In our opinion, the High Court should not have expressed its view on the disputed Page 17 / 20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.Nos.16445,19526 & 21288 of 2017 questions of fact in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to come to a conclusion that the offence is not made out.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - N S Kumar - Full Document

Sh. Bimal Kumar vs M/S Shree Hari Vrinda City Pvt, Ltd on 5 June, 2023

29. Reliance can asso be placed on judgment Sampelly Satyanaraya Rao Vs Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd, 2016 SCC on line SC 954 AIR 2016 SC 4363 : 2016 CC NO. 48931/2018 Sh. Bimla Kumar Vs. M/S shre Hari Vrinda City Pvt. Ltd. 19/26 20 (9) SCAE 11: 2016 (10) SCC 458 wherein interpretting the word "security" it was observed that "The said expression refers to other cheques being towards repayment of installments. The repayment becomes due under the agreement, the moment the loan is advanced and the installment falls due. Once the loan was disbursed and installments have fallen due on the date of the cheque as per the agreement, dishonour of such cheques would fall under section 138 of the Act."
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Simarjeet Kaur vs Rajesh Kumar Chauhan on 3 February, 2025

19.Furthermore, the argument of Ld. Counsel for accused that the complainant could not have presented the cheques in question before 07.09.2020, is neither here nor there as there is no such bar in the loan agreement executed between the parties. No doubt, it is mentioned in the loan agreement that the cheques in question are being issued as security cheques, however the same does not dis-entitle the complainant to present the same for enforcing the amount legally recoverable by her. Qua the defence of security cheque taken by the accused, it is pertinent to note that even if the aforesaid defence of the accused is accepted, the same does not help the accused. Reliance in this regard is placed by this Court on the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., (2016) 10 SCC Ct Case No. 1776/2020 Simarjeet Kaur vs. Rajesh Kumar Chauhan Page 10 of 12 458; Sripati Singh vs. State of Jharkhand & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1002 and Sunil Todi vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1174 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that merely because a cheque has been given for security purposes does not mean that there is no legally enforceable debt or liability in favour of the complainant, however, it does mean that the Court has to see whether there exists legally enforceable debt or liability as on the date mentioned on the cheque or whether a legally enforceable debt or liability has arisen at the time of presentation of the cheque.
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Sunil Kumar Sharma vs Mohd. Jamaluddin on 3 August, 2021

23. In the present case, all the three cheques were handed over by the appellant to the complainant on the date of the execution of the MOU i.e. 07.07.2014. The MOU itself records an outstanding liability of Rs.44,50,000/- of the appellant towards the complainant. The total amount of the three cheques in CA No.180/2019, 181/2019 & 182/2019 M/s S.R. Buildtech Vs. Mohd. Jamaluddin Page No.14/15 question comes to Rs.44,50,000/- which is the recorded outstanding liability as on the date of handing over of the cheques. The appellant in his defence plea recorded at the stage of framing of notice under section 251 CrPC admitted having issued the cheques in discharge of an existing liability qua the complainant. In these facts and circumstances the cheques in question represented discharge of existing enforceable debt of the appellant towards the complainant. Thus in terms of the ratio laid down in the cases of Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. and Don Ayengia v. State of Assam, the complaints of the complainant on the basis of the cheques in question were maintainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next