Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (1.00 seconds)
Documents citing Yash Pal vs Kartar Singh on 19 May, 2003

R.Tharmambal vs V.Christopher Moni Prakash on 18 December, 2012

34.Looking at from any angle, Ex.P1 cheque dated 15.02.2010 bounced back owing to the reasons of (i) insufficient funds (2) Payee's Endorsement irregular as per Memorandum of Union of Bank of India, Nagercoil Branch dated 16.02.2010. Furthermore, this Court holds that the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of writing as per the decision in Union of India V. Jyoti Prakash Mitter reported in AIR 1971 SC 1093 at 1098 to 1100 and as per the decision in Yash Pal V. Kartar Singh reported in AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 344 as stated supra.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 4 - M Venugopal - Full Document

R.Tharmambal vs V.Christopher Moni Prakash on 18 December, 2012

34.Looking at from any angle, Ex.P1 cheque dated 15.02.2010 bounced back owing to the reasons of (i) insufficient funds (2) Payee's Endorsement irregular as per Memorandum of Union of Bank of India, Nagercoil Branch dated 16.02.2010. Furthermore, this Court holds that the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of writing as per the decision in Union of India V. Jyoti Prakash Mitter reported in AIR 1971 SC 1093 at 1098 to 1100 and as per the decision in Yash Pal V. Kartar Singh reported in AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 344 as stated supra.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Selvaraj vs Kolandayee on 17 July, 2013

26. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.566 of 2009 in O.S.No.87 of 2008 dated 10.07.2009, it is clear that the trial Court has not borne in mind of the principles laid down in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. Jyoti Prakash Mitter, AIR 1871 SC 1093 at 1098 to 1100 and the decision in Yash Pal v. Kartar Singh, AIR 2003 P & H 344, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Sri. T.V. Valasale Gowda vs Smt. Shanthala on 27 January, 2021

29. On careful considering the written argument filed by the learned counsel for the complainant at para No.1 to 9 are not acceptable one in view of the reasons stated by this court while appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and also accused. It is held in the above that, the complainant has miserably failed to prove that, he has lent an amount of Rs.4 Lakhs to the accused and in turn the accused has issued cheque in question i.e. Ex.P.1 towards discharge of the alleged loan amount and it is also held that, the accused has successfully rebutted the presumptions available to the complainant not only by eliciting the materials from the evidence of the complainant but also by adducing her evidence and producing the documents in support of her defence. It is true that, the accused has admitted her signature and cheque in question belongs to her account but it is nowhere admitted by 55 C.C.No.30462/2017 J the accused that, the cheque in question i.e Ex.P.1 was issued in favour of the complainant and also proved that, the cheque in question entered into the hands of complainant through the PW.2 who was workign in S.K.Road Lines as opined by this court at the time of appreciation of the evidence of both parties. No doubt, the other defences which have been taken up by the accused has not rebutted but however when the accused has rebutted the presumptions available to the complainant and complainant has failed to prove the initial burden casted upon him as contemplated under the law, in such circumstances the complainant cannot be permitted to take contention that, the presumptions envisaged U/s. 139 are come to his aid, therefore for the said reasons the contentions taken by the learned counsel in the written argument cannot be acceptable one. It is true that, in view of the principles of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court and High Courts in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the complainant i.e 1) 2019­ 4­ SCC­197 in case of Birsingh Vs.Mukesh Kumar; 2) Crl.A.No.508/2019 (Supreme Court of India) in case 56 C.C.No.30462/2017 J of Rohitbhai Jeevanlal Patel Vs. State of Gujarath; 3) 1971­1­SCC­396­SC Union of India Vs. Jyothi Prakash Mitter; 4) AIR 2003 P H 344 Punjab and Haryana High court­ Yash Pal Vs. Kartar Singh; 5) Rajgopal Vs. A.Sivasubramanian Madras high Court,Madurai Bench; 6) Uthirapathy Vs.Balasubramanian Madras High Court; 7) Criminal Petition No.101456/17 C/w. 100366/17 - Dharwad Bench, High Court of Karnataka, 8) Sampelly Sathyanagaraya Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd., 2016­10­SCC­458, 9) Sri.Yogesh Poojary Vs. Sri.K.Shankar Bhat - ILR 2019 KAR 493, the court can draw presumption U/s. 118 and 139 of N.I. Act that, when the holder of the cheque admitted the signature and issuance of the cheque the court can draw presumptions towards issuance of the cheque is for legally recoverable debt or liability but the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decisions also held that, "Issuance of cheque would create a presumption with respect to legally enforceable debt in favour of the payee of the cheque however, the said presumption is rebuttable", but in the present case the facts and 57 C.C.No.30462/2017 J circumstances and the facts and circusmtances of the decided case are not one and the same and in the present case the accused has established that the cheque in question has not been issued to the complainant though she has admitted her signature on the cheque and also rebutted the presumption available in favour of the complainant, therefore with due respect to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India and High Court of Karnataka referred by learned counsel for the complainant are not applicable to the claim made by the complainant in this case.
Bangalore District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muthuraj vs Ganesan on 21 December, 2012

34. It is to be remembered that the admission of the signature in the cheque/cheques alone will not prove the defence as per Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without proving the other ingredients. One such ingredient is that the cheque is drawn/has been drawn for 'Discharge of a Debt or other Liability' . To put it succinctly, whether the ingredients of Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are attracted as a matter of routine or automatically or to be gone into by the trial Court at the time of evidence being adduced by the parties in the main case (including the Petitioner/Accused as the case may be) before coming to the conclusion as to the applicability of Section 20 r/w. Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In short, the main case S.T.C.No.32 of 2012 on the file of the trial Court is posted for evidence being let in on the side of the Petitioner/Accused. Also, he has been questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At that point of time only, the Petitioner/Accused has projected Cr.M.P.No.1728 of 2012. Further, the Petitioner/Accused has not projected favourable circumstances in his favour to allow Cr.M.P.No.1728 of 2012 in question, moreso, in view of the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA Vs. JYOTI PRAKASH MITTER reported in AIR 1971 SC 1093 AT 1098 TO 1100 as stated earlier and also in Yash Pal V. Kartar Singh reported in AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 344, wherein it is clearly stated that ..... However, in the present case, such investigation is not likely to help to conclusively prove that the writing dated 11.2.1998 was infact recorded earlier because the age of the ink cannot be determined on the basis of writing." In any event, this Court comes to an inevitable conclusion that the Petitioner/Accused has projected Cr.M.P.No.1728 of 2012, after the closure of evidence on the side of the Respondent/Complainant and also after when he has been questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code etc., and therefore, it is pellucidly clear that only with a view to procrastinate the pending proceedings in S.T.C.No.32 of 2012 on the file of the trial Court, he has projected Cr.M.P.No.1728 of 2012 and viewed in that perspective, the order of dismissal passed by the trial Court in dismissing Cr.M.P.No.1728 of 2012 dated 27/9/2012, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not suffer from any material irregularity or patent illegality in the eye of Law. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Petition fails.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

Pandian vs M.Kamalakannan on 6 December, 2012

19.In short, this Court opines that Cr.M.P.No.3069 of 2012 filed by the Respondent/Accused before the Trial Court as Petitioner is not maintainable in limini in the eye of Law. There are no circumstances which necessitated the Trial court in the present case to allow Crl,.O.P.No.3069 of 2012 on 25.05.2012 in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. Jyoti Prakash Mitter reported in AIR 1971 SC 1093 at 1098 to 1100 as stated supra in the earlier para of this judgment and in Yash Pal V. Kartar Singh reported in AIR 2003 Punjab and Haryana 344, wherein it is clearly stated that "
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document

M/S. Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd vs R.Krishnamurthy on 29 November, 2013

30. In the instant case, according to the petitioner, the proceedings of the meeting was recorded in the minutes and the same was signed by six Directors, however, by using the same handwriting and ink, the alleged interpolation was made. Even if the said allegation is true, as the ink is same, the age of the ink cannot be decided by any expert, as the ink used for the alleged interpolation is the same. As decided by this Court and Punjab and Haryana Court in the decisions referred to above, seeking such a relief to find out the age of the ink would create only confusion and cause unreasonable delay.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - S Tamilvanan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next