Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 500 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing M/S. Modi Cements Ltd vs Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi on 2 March, 1998

Narayanan vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2009

The judicial pronouncements by the apex court in Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi ((1998) 3 SCC 249), M.M.T.C. Ltd. and another v. Medchl Chemicals and Pharma (P) Ltd. and another ((2002) 1 SCC 234) and Geoplast Pvt. Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D'Souza (2003 (2) KLT 16 (SC)), it is noticed, have not been brought to the notice of the learned Judge who rendered the decision in Chackochan T.K. v. P.P.Paul and another (2008 (4) KHC 922), expressing the view that the complainant has to plead and prove that the stop payment instruction was issued to circumvent penal liability under Section 138 of the N.I.Act. That view, with respect, run counter to the decisions of the apex court, referred to above, which have laid down the principle that the burden was on the accused when a cheque issued by him got dishonoured on his stop payment instruction that he had sufficient funds to clear the amount under the instrument and the stop payment instruction was given for other valid reasons.
Kerala High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - S S Satheesachandran - Full Document

Investors And Realtors Private vs In Favour Of The Complainant Were Not ... on 12 April, 2022

23. On careful examination of all the documents of complainant, it is very clear that the complainant filed this complaint well within time and complied all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881. The presumption Under Section 139 of the NI Act is a presumption of law, it is not a presumption of fact. This presumption has to be raised by the court in all the cases once the factum of dishonor is established. The onus of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The standard of such rebuttable evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Such evidence must be sufficient to prove the case. Therefore a mere explanation is not sufficient to rebut this presumption of law. This court being guided by the preposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court which is relied by the complainant which are as follows;­ Modi Cements Ltd., Vs Kuchilkumar Nandi 1998 (3) SCC 249 K.N.Beena Vs Muniyappan and others 2001 (8) SCC 458 Rangappa Vs Mohan 2010 (11) SCC 441 48 CC NO.3445/2019 SCCH-26 Kalamani Tex and another Vs P.Balasubramaniyan 2021 (5) SCC 283 Triyambak S.Hegde Vs Sripad 2021 SCC online SC 788 Birsingh Vs Mukesh Kumar 2019 (4) SCC 197 Ripudaman Singh Vs Balakrishna 2019 (4) SCC 767 T.R.Srinivasaiah Vs Chikkamagalur District cooperative Central Bank Ltd., (Criminal Revision No.109/2017) Sri.Dhaneshwari Traders Vs Sanjay Jain and another 2019 (16) SCC 83 Jayam company Vs T.Ravichandran 2003 CR.L.J. 2890­High court of Madras It is profitable to refer the decision relied by the complainant and relied Hon'ble Apex court recent decision passed in Criminal Appeal No.123/2021 arising out of special leave petition (criminal) 1876/2018 between M/s Kalamani Tex and another Vs P.Balasubramanian disposal date on 10­02­2021 (three judges bench). In this case, Apex court held that, "once signature on cheque 49 CC NO.3445/2019 SCCH-26 admitted by the accused, court ought to have presume that, cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt."
Bangalore District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Goaplast Pvt. Ltd., Company ... vs Shri Chico Ursula Dsouza, Resident Of ... on 16 March, 2002

The Judgment in Modi Cement Ltd., v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (supra), was followed by the Supreme Court in NEPC Micon Ltd., v. Magma Leasing Ltd., (supra) wherein reference has been made to the decision of 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Modi Cements Ltd., V. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (supra) dealing with a similar contention and interpreting Section 138 of the Act. The Apex Court held :
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - A S Aguiar - Full Document

Investors And Realtors vs R/A No.E22 on 18 April, 2022

23. On careful examination of all the documents of complainant, it is very clear that the complainant filed this complaint well within time and complied all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881. The presumption Under Section 139 of the NI Act is a presumption of law, it is not a presumption of fact. This presumption has to be raised by the court in all the cases once the factum of dishonor is established. The onus of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The standard of such rebuttable evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Such evidence must be sufficient to prove the case. Therefore a mere explanation is not sufficient to rebut this presumption of law. This court being guided by the preposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court which is relied by the complainant which are as follows;­ Modi Cements Ltd., Vs Kuchilkumar Nandi 1998 (3) SCC 249 K.N.Beena Vs Muniyappan and others 2001 (8) SCC 458 Rangappa Vs Mohan 2010 (11) SCC 441 Kalamani Tex and another Vs P.Balasubramaniyan 2021 (5) SCC 283 Triyambak S.Hegde Vs Sripad 2021 SCC online SC 788 Birsingh Vs Mukesh Kumar 2019 (4) SCC 197 Ripudaman Singh Vs Balakrishna 2019 (4) SCC 767 53 C.C.NO.6109/2018 SCCH-26 T.R.Srinivasaiah Vs Chikkamagalur District cooperative Central Bank Ltd., (Criminal Revision No.109/2017) Sri.Dhaneshwari Traders Vs Sanjay Jain and another 2019 (16) SCC 83 Jayam company Vs T.Ravichandran 2003 CR.L.J. 2890­High court of Madras It is profitable to refer the decision relied by the complainant and relied Hon'ble Apex court recent decision passed in Criminal Appeal No.123/2021 arising out of special leave petition (criminal) 1876/2018 between M/s Kalamani Tex and another Vs P.Balasubramanian disposal date on 10­02­2021 (three judges bench). In this case, Apex court held that, "once signature on cheque admitted by the accused, court ought to have presume that, cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt."
Bangalore District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendra Pratap Singh vs The State Of U.P. & Another on 27 March, 2015

Petition is allowed. Summoning order passed by Magistrate in Complaint Case No.2468 of 2010 Gangeshwar Mahadevji Trust vs. Rajendra Pratap Singh is quashed with direction to Magistrate to make further enquiry and to pass fresh appropriate order in accordance with law in the light of proposition laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of M/s Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi reported in AIR 1998 SC, 1057;
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendra Tour And Travels vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 May, 2024

5. Judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Boby Anand @ Yogesh Anand Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra), the Court has not considered the three Judges' Bench judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in M/S. Modi Cements Ltd. Vs. Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi (supra) and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has relied upon the judgment of two Judges' Bench passed in the case of Raj Kumar Khurana Vs. State of (NCT OF DELHI) & Another (supra), wherein the return memo shows the endorsement of bank 'cheque reported lost', which is not the condition in the present case and even otherwise the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Raj Kumar Khurana Vs. State of (NCT OF DELHI) & Another (supra) had not considered the judgment of three Judges' Bench passed in M/S. Modi Cements Ltd. Vs. Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi (supra).
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next