Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Shri Arvind Kumar vs . M/S P. Aryan Art Gallery Pvt. Ltd. on 23 March, 2023 cites

K.N. Beena vs Muniyappan And Another on 18 October, 2001

In the written submissions filed by the complainant , the complainant has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.N. Beena Vs. Muniyappan & Anr(2001) 8 SCC 458 and the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in V.S. Yadav Vs. Reena 172(2010) DLT 561 wherein it has been succinctly held that that mere denial or rebuttal by the accused in reply to legal demand notice is not enough and the accused has to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liablility. Also, the accused has to prove by cogent evi- dence the circumstances under which the cheque was issued. In the present case, the defence of the accused, that the CC No.34249/2019 Shri Arvind Kumar Vs. M/S P. Aryan Art Gallery Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 26 cheques were issued towards the proposed loan ipso facto does not by itself rebut the presumption.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1424 - S N Variava - Full Document

Kusum Ingots And Alloys Ltd vs Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. And Ors on 23 February, 2000

12. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is necessary to look at the legal framework regarding Section 138 NI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kusum Inglots & Alloys Ltd and Ors v. K Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 745 has clearly laid down the ingredients which are to be satisfied for making out a case under Section 138 NI Act, which are being reproduced hereunder:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 663 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document

V.S.Yadav vs Reena on 21 September, 2010

In the written submissions filed by the complainant , the complainant has relied on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.N. Beena Vs. Muniyappan & Anr(2001) 8 SCC 458 and the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in V.S. Yadav Vs. Reena 172(2010) DLT 561 wherein it has been succinctly held that that mere denial or rebuttal by the accused in reply to legal demand notice is not enough and the accused has to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liablility. Also, the accused has to prove by cogent evi- dence the circumstances under which the cheque was issued. In the present case, the defence of the accused, that the CC No.34249/2019 Shri Arvind Kumar Vs. M/S P. Aryan Art Gallery Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 26 cheques were issued towards the proposed loan ipso facto does not by itself rebut the presumption.
Delhi High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1133 - S N Dhingra - Full Document
1