Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Braja Kishore Dikshit vs Purna Chandra Panda on 9 November, 1956

Sh. Desh Raj (Desha) vs Sh. Satya Pal Singh (Since Deceased) on 10 July, 2020

―9. The defendant being holder of the cheque which was issued by plaintiff in their name is holder of the same for consideration as also deposed by the plaintiff Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which raised presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration. As discussed, the cheque was drawn for consideration. As discussed, the defendant failed to rebut that presumption as neither they proved on record that they are holder in due course of the cheque in question as opined in the case of Braja Kishore Dikshit v. Puma Chandra Panda reported in AIR 1957 Orissa 153 which laid down as under:-
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Morepen Finance Ltd. vs Reserve Bank Of India on 31 August, 2004

We have already taken note of the provision of Section 531 of the Act. The transaction in question is dated 15.1.1997 and provisional winding up order was passed on 22.5.1997. This transaction is clearly within six months from the commencement of its winding up. However, in order to attract deeming provision contained in Section 531(1) of the Act, another aspect to be seen is as to whether such a transaction would be a `fraudulent preference' if such application had arisen in an insolvency petition against an individual. One has to, therefore, examine the definition of fraudulent preference as contained under the Bankruptcy Law or Insolvency Law. This position has been judicially determined in number of cases and I would refer to these cases soon hereafter. I may, however, note at this stage itself that the principal laid down in these cases is that it is not enough to show that preference was shown to a particular creditor. It also must be shown that it was done with a view to give him favored treatment. A probe into the debtors mind is thus involved. This ingredient is to be established to make out a case of fraudulent preference under Section 531 of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - A K Sikri - Full Document

V.K.Dhanasekar vs Vasantha

20. Counsel for the defendant in support of his various contentions placed reliance upon the decisions reported in (1)2006 (6) SCC 39 [M.S.Narayanan Menon Vs. State of Kerala] (2)1989-1-LW 552 (DB) [Kanthirathinam Vs. Sajjadi Begum] (3)1995 -2-LW 719 [Chidamabaram Vs. P.T.Ponnusamy] (4)2016 (2) Crimes 52 SC [Pre Sagar Manocha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (5)(Judgment of High Court of Madras in S.A.No.2198 of 2004 dated 03.09.2012 [Narayanan Servai Vs Seenuammal] (6)Judgment of High Court of Madras in C.S.No.40 of 2011 dated 09.01.2017 [K.Rajendra Kumar Jain Vs. Jayanthi & Others] (7)2011 (4) SCC 726 [Tatimapula Naga Raju Vs. Pattem Padmavathi (8)2015 (1) MLJ 1335 [A.Thirumoorthy Vs. S.Bastin] (9)LW 386 [Ramraj Vs. Narasimha Dass Gounder] (10)AIR 1960 AP 121 [Vakkalagadda Kondiah Vs. Channam Chetty Puliah (11)AIR 1986 AP 120 [Jayanthilal Goel Vs. Zubaida Khanum] (12)AIR 1961 MP 62 (DB) [ Narayanprasad Rai Gokulprasad Rai Vs. Ghyanshyamlal] (13)Judgment of Madras High Court in A.S.No.549 of 2008 dated 08.11.2016 [ G.Vasantha Vs. Sri Maharaj Kailash Benefit Fund Ltd] (14)AIR 1953 BOM 290 (DB) [ Tarachand Kevalram Vs. Sikri Brothers] (15)1982 (1) MLJ 431 [Ramiah Thevar Vs. Balasundaram] (16)AIR 1992 MAD 346 [kadarkarai Reddiar Vs. Arumugam Nadar] (17)Judgment of Madras High Court in S.A.No.457 of 2007 dated 02.01.2012 [Mangayarkarasi Vs. Natarajan] (18)A.I.R 1952 ALL 590 (DB) [Durga Shah Mohanlal Bankers Vs. Governor General in Council] (19)AIR 1991 SC 441 [Ponnappa Moothan Sons Vs. Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd] (20)AIR 1957 Orissa 153 (SB) [Braja Kishore Dikkshit Vs. Purna Chandra] (21)AIR 1979 ALL 253 (SB) [Madhya Bharath Khadi Sangh Vs. Bal Kishen Kapoor] (22)2000(99) Comp Cases 229 (Orissa) [Ranjit Raj & Anr Vs. Pukharaj Jain] (23)2005(127) Comp Cases 142 (Delhi) [Morpen Finance Ltd Vs. RBI] (24)1995-2-LW 719 [Chidambaram Vs. P.T.Ponnussamy] (25)1997  1- LW 843 [Talamalai Chetty Vs. Rathinasamy] (26)2002-2-LW 692 [Samikannu Naicker Vs. Sigamani] (27)2002  2- LW 845 [K.Mani Vs. Elumalai] (28)2001(3) MLJ 1753 [Malar Finance Corporation Vs. Pandurangan] (29)Judgment of High Court of Madras in S.A.Nos.280 to 285 of 1998 dated 30.06.2011 [Kuppayammal Vs. Sitheswaran and Others] (30)1997  1- LW 474 [A.Irudayasamy Vs. Perumal Naidu] (31)AIR 1983 MAD 368 [Sesharal Bafna Vs. V.C.Subramanian] (32)1993  2- LW 505 (DB) [Sesharal Bafna Vs. V.C.Subramanian] (33)1962 (1) MLJ 306 [M.P.Rm.Irulandi Mudaliar Vs. Syed Ibrahim] (34)MANu/BH/0075/1940 (PATNA) (DB) [Hridaya Singh Vs. Kailash Singh] (35)AIR 1954 MAD 532 (SB) [S.Ahmed Ibrahim Vs. D.Ramadas] (36)2014 (16) Supreme Court Cases 623 [Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another] (37)2012 (4) Supreme Court Cases 516 [Rattiram and Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh through Inspector of Police] The principles of law outlined in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case at hand.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document

Standard Chartered Bank vs M.S. Handa And Ors. on 11 March, 1993

The Hundi is duly stamped and the opinion of the Collector under Section 31 of the Stamp Act has already been obtained. It was not necessary to present the Hundi for payment to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in view of the undertaking given by the defendant No.3 for making the payment of the Hundi on maturity date. He relied upon various decisions reported in Bank of Maharashtra vs. M/s Swastic Sales Corporation , Mis U. Ponnappa Moothan Sons,Palghat vs. The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. & Ors.(J.T.1990 (4) S.C. 94), M/s Bezonji Byramji and Co. Jalna and Others vs. Central Bank of India Ltd. Bombay , Bank of India vs. M/s Krishan Lal & Co ( 1990(3) Delhi Lawyer 36), M/s M. Ramnarain Pvt. Ltd and Another vs. The State Trading Corporation of India Limited , and Braja Kishore Dikshit vs. Puma Chandra Panda ( A.I.R. 1957 Orissa 153) in support of his contentions.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Jawala Industries vs Murari Lal Mangal on 23 April, 2014

"9. The defendant being holder of the cheque which was issued by plaintiff in their name is holder of the same for consideration as also deposed by the plaintiff Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act which raised presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration. As discussed, the cheque was drawn for consideration. As discussed, the defendant failed to rebut that presumption as neither they proved on record that they are holder in due course of the cheque in question as opined in the case of Braja Kishore Dikshit v. Puma Chandra Panda reported in AIR 1957 Orissa 153 which laid down as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - V J Mehta - Full Document
1