Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 606 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Antitrust - Section 26(2) Disclaimer: ... vs Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company ... on 19 May, 2015

Rajesh Sharma vs Mohar Pal on 15 May, 2026

MACT No. 187/19 Rajesh Sharma vs. Mohar Pal & Ors. Page No. 18 of 27 There remains no doubt that with such level disability of 27% permanent physical disability in relation to left lower limb, petitioner would not be in a position to perform even his daily chores independently. He would not be able to run or do any physical activity without assistance and would not be able to continue his work. Moreover, nothing contrary has come on record to challenge the disability of petitioner. In the circumstances of the case, this Tribunal is of the opinion that functional disability in relation to whole body of the petitioner shall be considered to be 10% for the purpose of assessing corresponding loss of his future income.
Delhi District Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahul Sharma vs Sanjay Sharma on 14 November, 2024

25. Before taking up the defence as to seven cheques being misplaced, it may be noted as a background that 6 cases u/s 138 NI Act and one civil suit for recovery has been filed by the complainant against the accused. While the appellant/accused got himself examined as DW 1, he was cross examined on behalf of the complainant and during such cross examination some documents pertaining to the aforesaid Civil Suit no. 1221/2018 (decided in favour of complainant) were brought on record by the complainant such as the copy of judgement dated 31.03.2023 as Ex. DW1/X, copy of WS as DW1/X1 and copy of depositions dated 24.08.2022 & 02.11.2022 of complainant (being DW-1 in the suit) as DW1/X2. It is noted that in the said WS Ex. DW/X1 it is pleaded that the defendant (appellant/accused herein) had handed over the seven blank cheques to the plaintiff (i.e. complainant / respondent herein). When confronted with this pleading during cross-examination dt. 30.05.2023 in the trial of the present complaint case, the appellant/accused deposed that his statement made in the court that day is correct. The appellant/accused thus chose to stay with his plea that those cheques got misplaced and were used by the complainant, albeit without any explanation or any voluntary statement to explain or show how his plea of defence of misplaced cheques taken in the present case was true and not the one taken in the civil suit which runs contrary to the current plea. Furthermore noted that during his cross examination dt. 24.08.2022 Ex. DW1/X2 in the said civil suit, the appellant/accused being defendant resiled from his examination-in-chief and denied to the suggestion that he had handed over 7 cheques. He further deposed that he cannot explain how the plaintiff (i.e. complainant herein) came into possession of his cheques. He showed ignorance CA No. 278/2023 Rahul Sharma Vs. Sanjay Sharma Pages no. 17/25 over his plea of misplaced cheques taken in his WS and stated that his version in the court that day and plea in the WS are correct. He further volunteered to depose that he has given 3 cheques to the plaintiff in lieu of Rs. 3,10,000/- taken from plaintiff and the said 3 cheques were never presented in the bank by the plaintiff. It is to be noted here that the complainant has not disclosed any such fact of 3 cheques during the trial of the present complaint case. The fact of 3 cheques being given in lieu of Rs. 3,10,000/- is vital as it is directly concerned with the said borrowing and therefore ought to have been disclosed by the appellant/accused in the present complaint case. Also, during his further cross- examination dt. 02.11.2022 Ex. DW1/X2, he deposed that he had given 5 cheques from the cheque book to the plaintiff towards repayment of loan and 7 cheques were missing from his cheque book. When asked, he chose to remain with the stand that 5 cheques were given. Thus, contrary stands have been taken by the defendant (i.e. appellant/accused herein) during the deposition in the said civil suit and they run contrary to the deposition of the accused in the present complaint case also. No satisfactory explanation has been provided by the accused in this regard. The appellant/accused therefore cannot be seen as a reliable witness.
Delhi District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Moti Chand vs Sh. Sanjay Kumar on 6 October, 2020

3. The Plaintiff's claim that Defendants are residing in the suit property in the capacity of a licensee. It is stated that the Defendant no.1 got married with the Defendant no.2 in the year 2009 and at the time of their marriage, the Plaintiffs had spent a sum of Rs. 4 Lakhs on the expenses of the marriage of their son. It is alleged that the Defendant no.1 does not have permanent employment since the time of his marriage and thus, financial support has been provided to him by the Plaintiffs from time to time . The Plaintiffs claim CS NO.02/16 Moti Chand v. Sanjay & Ors. 3/27 4 that the Defendant no.1 has taken a number of loans from the banks using his credit cards and as he is unable to pay the debt, therefore bank officers are regularly coming to the suit property for recovery of the amount and are threatening the Plaintiffs and are interfering in their peaceful possession of the suit property. The Plaintiffs have also alleged that number of times the loans taken by the Defendant no.1 have been re paid by them out of their own earnings/savings but despite this , the Defendant no.1 is not taking responsibility of his own matrimonial life and has refused to look after the needs of his old-aged parents. It is also claimed that the behaviour of the Defendants towards the Plaintiffs is violent and Defendant no.1 is pressurizing the Plaintiffs to sale off the suit property and give him his share. The Plaintiffs have submitted that the Defendants have no legal right, title or interest in the suit property as they are occupying the same in the capacity of being a licensee. Plaintiffs have alleged that they have an unmarried daughter to support and whenever they ask the Defendant no.1 to assist them with the finances, he gets violent and starts quarrelling with them. It is claimed that Defendant no.1 is creating pressure upon the Plaintiffs to sell off the suit property and give him his share and has threatened that if his demands are not met with, he would embroil the family members in false cases.
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Subhash Chand vs Devender Kumar Sethi on 27 September, 2024

"16. It is also to be borne in mind that the requirement of giving of notice is a clear departure from the rule of Criminal Law, where there is no stipulation of giving of a notice before filing a complaint Any drawer who claims that he did not receive the notice sent by post, can, within 15 days of receipt of summons from the court in respect of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, make payment of the cheque amount and submit to the Court that he had made payment within 15 days of receipt of summons (by receiving a copy of complaint with the summons) and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be CC No. 2067/2022 Subhash Chand v. Devender Kunar Sethi Page no 9 of 24 (Anmol Nohria) JMFC (NI Act) (Digital Court) rejected. A person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from the Court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the contrary under Section 27 of the G.C. Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act. In our view, any other interpretation, of the proviso would defeat the very object of the legislation.
Delhi District Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mehar Singh Tanwar vs M/S Insightful Associates Pvt. Ltd on 25 November, 2025

13. The accused appeared on 08.08.2023 pursuant to the summons, thereafter on 08.08.2023, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against accused No.1 company through accused No.2 namely Rajat Lubana Dharamveer Singh and accused No.2 as well, to which the accused No.2 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the offence U/s 138 NI Act. In the notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C., accused admitted that he knows the complainant from 2021, accused stated that he took Rs.49 Lakhs from the complainant for investment in share market, written agreement was made between the parties for the said investment. The cheques in question were given for settlement of previous investment in front of police officers under coercion as police officers were present at that time on the scene. Accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and also admitted that the name and date on the cheque in question is in his handwriting. Further, the accused denied the receipt of legal notice from the complainant, though the accused admitted that the address on the legal demand notice is the correct address. On the date of framing of notice, oral request U/s 145(2) NI Act made on behalf of the CC NO.6710/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 7 of 23 accused persons was also allowed.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mehar Chand Tanwar vs M/S Insightful Associates Pvt. Ltd on 25 November, 2025

13. The accused appeared on 26.07.2023 pursuant to the summons, thereafter on 08.08.2023, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against accused No.1 company through accused No.2 namely Rajat Lubana Dharamveer Singh and accused No.2 as well, to which the accused No.2 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the offence U/s 138 NI Act. In the notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C., accused admitted that he knows the complainant from 2021, accused stated that he took Rs.49 Lakhs from the complainant for investment in share market, written agreement was made between the parties for the said investment. The cheques in question were given for settlement of previous investment in front of police officers under coercion as police officers were present at that CC NO.5182/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 7 of 23 time on the scene. Accused admitted his signatures on both the cheques in question and also admitted that the name and date on the cheques in question are in his handwriting. Further, the accused denied the receipt of legal notice from the complainant, though the accused admitted that the address on the legal demand notice is the correct address. On the date of framing of notice, oral request U/s 145(2) NI Act made on behalf of the accused persons was also allowed.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mehar Chand Tanwar vs M/S Insightful Associates Pvt Ltd on 25 November, 2025

13. The accused appeared on 26.07.2023 pursuant to the summons, thereafter on 08.08.2023, notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C. was framed against accused No.1 company through accused No.2 namely Rajat Lubana Dharamveer Singh and accused No.2 as well, to which the accused No.2 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the offence U/s 138 NI Act. In the notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C., accused admitted that he knows the complainant from 2021, accused stated that he took Rs.49 Lakhs from the complainant for investment in share market, written agreement was made between the parties for the said investment. The cheques in question were given for settlement of previous investment in front of CC NO.5183/2023 Mehar Chand Tanwar Vs. Insightful Associates & Ors. PAGE NO. 7 of 23 police officers under coercion as police officers were present at that time on the scene. Accused admitted his signatures on the cheque in question and also admitted that the name and date on the cheque in question is in his handwriting. Further, the accused denied the receipt of legal notice from the complainant, though the accused admitted that the address on the legal demand notice is the correct address. On the date of framing of notice, oral request U/s 145(2) NI Act made on behalf of the accused persons was also allowed.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jeetesh Chhabra vs Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal on 18 October, 2025

30. A bare perusal of the afore-cited testimonies of the defence witnesses shows that DW-1 and DW-4 have not deposed anything about the amount that was taken by the accused from the complainant. Both the said witnesses have only deposed about the repayment made by the accused to the complainant. DW-3 has deposed that accused has told him that he has taken ₹10-15 lakhs from the complainant and the said testimony of DW-3 appears to be hearsay as no amount was lent in his presence. In fact, on a conscientious perusal of the testimony of accused/DW-2 reveals that apart from his deposition that he had received a sum of ₹15,00,000/- from the complainant through RTGS, he has not deposed anything about the cash loan of ₹7,00,000/-. The entire testimony of accused is with respect to the repayment of the loan amount to the complainant in cash. Admittedly, the accused had received the legal demand notice sent by the complainant. Despite the service of the legal demand notice, the accused did not setup any case that he has not received cash loan of ₹7,00,000/- from the complainant by replying to the same. No complaint was made by the accused regarding the misuse of his security CT Case No. 1579/2020 Jitesh Chhabra vs. Sanjay Kumar Aggarwal Page No. 17 of 21 Digitally signed by NEHA NEHA GARG GARG Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next