Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (2.08 seconds)
Documents citing V. Vasanthakumar vs H.C. Bhatia And Ors on 13 July, 2016

Sri. M/S. Annapoorna Power vs M/S. V.R. Constructions on 7 April, 2021

In another decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in the case of T. Vasanthakumar Vs. 60 C.C.No. 6714/2016 J Vijayakumari wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that " NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS Act, 1881­ Sections 138 and 139 - acquittal - If justified­ Accused not disputing issuance of cheque and his signature on it­ Plea that it was issued long back as security and that loan amount was repaid­ Not supported by any evidence - Fact that date was printed, would not lend any evidence to case of accused­ Acquittal not proper. Hence in the present case also it is the main defence of the Accused that the cheques in dispute were given to the complainant for security towards supply of centering materials and he has paid the entire rent amount to the complainant and returned the centering materials, inspite of it the complainant did not returned the cheques in question to him but in this regard the accused has not produced documents or proof in such circumstances by applying the principles of law laid down in the above decision the defence of the Accused cannot be acceptable one.
Bangalore District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. A. Subramaniyan vs Smt. Bhagyalakshmi @ on 30 August, 2021

In this regard it is relevant here to refer the decision reported in 2015 (4) KCCR 2881 (SC) in the case of T. Vasanthakumar Vs. 35 C.C.No. 15041/2018 J Vijayakumari wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that "NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT Act, 1881­ Section s138 and 139 - acquittal - If justified­ Accused not disputing issuance of cheque and his signature eon it­ Plea that it was issued long back as security and that loan amount was repaid­ Not supported by any evidence - Fact that date was printed, would not lend any evidence to case of accused­ Acquittal not proper.
Bangalore District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karthik Ranganathan … vs Disciplinary Committee-Iv on 19 August, 2021

Suffice it to say that this issue as also the http://www.judis.nic.in 18/24 W.P. No. 13796 of 2021 larger issue pertaining to access to Justice was discussed at length in the case of V. Vasanthakumar vs H.C. Bhatia And Ors. reported in (2016) 7 SCC 686, wherein the Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench on a range of issues, such as inter-alia whether to establish a National Court of Appeal or Regional Benches of the Supreme Court, etc. It is not for this Court to make recommendations to the Centre or to issue a mandamus for what looks like, at first blush, a problem of great proportions. It seems evident to us that ‘access to justice’, irrespective of the restrictive nature of Article 136 of the Constitution of India, has been impeded with the situation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court at New Delhi. Whether a matter is granted special leave by the Hon’ble Court is one thing, and the Courts' absolute discretion cannot be in doubt, but the right to file a petition under that Article to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and to be heard by the Court in that application is altogether a different issue.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1