Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing G Muniswamy vs H S Nagendra Kumar on 6 November, 2013

Sri. K. Nagarjun vs Sri. N.Vasukinath on 6 January, 2020

Appeal No. 2275/2006 in the case of G. Muniswamy Vs. H.S.Nagendra Kumar 2) Crl.Application No. 2933/2007 in the case of Mr. Dinesh B Choksi Vs. Rahul Vasudeo Bhat 3) ILR 2006 KAR 4242 in the matter of H.Narasimha Rao Vs. R. Venakataram. In the decision of ILR 2006 KAR 4242 wherein the Hon'ble High Court 44 C.C.No.4242/2018 J had held that " In case if the time barred debt is agreed to be paid through a cheque there is no legal bar for the debtor agreeing to pay time barred debt and the cheque issued towards repayment of time barred debt also constitute offence U/s.138 of the Act . The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has also held that, "Sub section 3 of Sec. 25 of the Contract Act is an exception to the General Rule that, an agreement made without consideration is void. Sub Sec.3 of Sec. 25 of the Contract Act also applies to a case where there is a promise made in writing and signed by a person to be charged there with to pay wholly or in part a debt which is barred by law of limitation". It is further held that, a case of promise created by a cheque issued for discharge of a time barred debt or liability and once it is held that, a cheque drawn for a discharge of a time barred debt creates a promise which becomes enforceable contract, it cannot be said that, cheque is drawn in discharge of debt or liability which is not legally enforceable. The promise in the form of a cheque drawn in discharge of a time barred debt 45 C.C.No.4242/2018 J or liability becomes enforceable by virtue of Sub section 3 of Sec. 25 of the Contract Act. Thus, such cheque becomes a cheque drawn in discharge of legally enforceable debt as contemplated by the explanation to sec. 138 of the said Act of 1881.
Bangalore District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. C.Raju vs Sri. B.M.Narayanna on 20 February, 2020

Appeal No. 2275/2006 in the case of G. Muniswamy Vs. H.S.Nagendra Kumar 2) 47 C.C.No.26388/2017 J Crl.Application No. 2933/2007 in the case of Mr. Dinesh B Choksi Vs. Rahul Vasudeo Bhat 3) ILR 2006 KAR 4242 in the matter of H.Narasimha Rao Vs. R. Venakataram. In the decision of ILR 2006 KAR 4242 wherein the Hon'ble High Court had held that " In case if the time barred debt is agreed to be paid through a cheque there is no legal bar for the debtor agreeing to pay time barred debt and the cheque issued towards repayment of time barred debt also constitute offence U/s.138 of the Act . In Crl. Writ petition No. 1715 to 1719/2018 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has also held that, "Sub section 3 of Sec. 25 of the Contract Act is an exception to the General Rule that, an agreement made without consideration is void. Sub Sec.3 of Sec. 25 of the Contract Act also applies to a case where there is a promise made in writing and signed by a person to be charged there with to pay wholly or in part a debt which is barred by law of limitation". It is further held that, a case of promise created by a cheque issued for discharge of a time barred debt or liability and once it is held that, a cheque 48 C.C.No.26388/2017 J drawn for a discharge of a time barred debt creates a promise which becomes enforceable contract, it cannot be said that, cheque is drawn in discharge of debt or liability which is not legally enforceable. The promise in the form of a cheque drawn in discharge of a time barred debt or liability becomes enforceable by virtue of Sub section 3 of Sec. 25 of the Contract Act. Thus, such cheque becomes a cheque drawn in discharge of legally enforceable debt as contemplated by the explanation to sec. 138 of the said Act of 1881. Hence, in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Bombay in the above referred decisions in the present case also the Accused has promised to pay the time barred debt by issuing the cheques in question i.e., Ex.C.1 to C.3 towards discharge of the debt or liability, in such circumstances, the promise is in the form of a cheques drawn discharge of debt in question which becomes enforceable by virtue of Sec. 25 (3) of the Contract Act.
Bangalore District Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. S.G.Lakshmi vs Smt. Shanthamma on 4 November, 2020

Hence, it goes to show that, the cheque in question has been issued within the time but not issued for time barred debt, it is relevant here to mention that, during the course of cross­examination the accused has not cross­examined on this aspect and the accused was totally silent with regard to time barred debt, on this count also the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused cannot be acceptable one. In addition to that, it is true that, the complainant is claiming the loan amount pertaining to the transaction of the year 2012 i.e 18.1.2012 and it is also an admitted fact that, the cheque in question issued in the year 2015 ie dated:8.6.2015, now the question before the court is whether the cheque in question was issued in discharge of time barred debt or not and debt in question is not legally enforceable at the time of issuance of cheque in question. In this 63 C.C.No.24915 /2015 regard, it is relevant here to refer sec. 25(3) of the Contract Act which is very clear that, there is a promise made in writing and signed by a person to be charged there with to pay wholly or in part a debt which is time barred by law of Limitation. In this regard, it is relevant here to refer the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Bombay reported in Crl. Appeal No. 2275/2006 in the case of G. Muniswamy Vs. H.S.Nagendra Kumar
Bangalore District Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1