Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Mr. Anil Kumar Vasant Lokhande vs Mr. Purushottam Vinayak Sansare And ... on 12 January, 1993

Daryao Singh Khatri vs Het Ram (Retd. Lt. Colonel) on 24 June, 2013

A reference is made to the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) in 'Anil Vs. Purushottam cited as : 2010 Criminal Law Journal 1217' in Criminal Application No. 630 of 2009 in Criminal Appeal (Stamp) No. 139 of 2009 as referred by the accused. 18 As an alternative plea, the accused has challenged the competence of the complainant to pay such heavy amount to the accused in cash on the date of alleged transaction. In this regard, the complainant has made oral submissions that the substantive amount of Rs.9 lakhs was paid out of the sale proceeds of machinery which was earlier installed in the factory of the son of the complainant. Such a submission made on behalf of the complainant has not been corroborated by any material either in form of document or by way of oral testimony of any witness. The complainant has not produced any proof of the alleged payment made to the accused as neither he has produced any receipt nor any security cheque has been obtained.
Delhi District Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amit Gulati vs Gopal Krishan on 29 August, 2024

12. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that no offence under section 138 NI act is made out against the accused. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that complainant has relied upon fabricated receipt regarding the amount of Rs 23,00,000/- Complainant had obtained blank signed cheques and signatures of accused on blank papers which was later converted into the receipt. Blank signed cheques were also taken from the son of accused as security. Accused has only taken loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the complainant and returned most of the amount, however, complainant started demanding more money as interest and engaged in altercation with accused. Complainant misused the cheques of accused and filed false complaint against him. It is argued that accused does not have liability to pay the cheque amount and complainant has misused the cheques. Ld. Counsel for accused has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High court of Bombay in Anil vs Purushottam and of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, Prakashan vs P.K. Surendran, Murugan vs M.K. Karunagaran, Kumar Exports vs Sharma Carpets, Basalingappa v. Mudibbasappa and CC No. 15625/2016 Page No. 9 of 24 Shivangi Digitally signed by Shivangi Vyas Vyas Date: 2024.08.29 18:10:09 +05'30' Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria through LRs.
Delhi District Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1