C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
The relevant portion
from the judgment in the case of C.C. Alavi Haji (Supra) is reproduced below:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.30 seconds)Sheelawanti And Anr., ... vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 3 February, 1995
7. Accused has also taken a defence that particulars on the cheque except the
signatures are not filled by him. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Ravi
Chopra vs State And Anr, 2008 (102) DRJ 147 has held that:
M/S The Jammu & Kashmir Bank vs Abhishek Mittal on 26 May, 2011
In M/S The Jammu & Kashmir Bank vs Abhishek Mittal, Crl. A. No. 294/2011,
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that:
Deepak Vig vs Avdesh Mittal on 11 January, 2012
In the case of
M.S Narayana Menon (Supra) the accused as also the complainant
were stock brokers. The complainant entered into certain transactions
on behalf of the accused.Cheque issued by the accused in favour of
the complainant was dishonoured. The plea that was taken by the
accused was that the complainant was in dire need of financial
assistance and the said cheque was issued to enable him to tide over
his financial necessities and it was not in discharge of any debt or
liability payable to the complainant. The Supreme Court held that the
defence is acceptable as probable and the cheque could not be said
to have been issued in discharge of a debt as, for example, if a
cheque is issued for security or for any other purpose the same would
not come within the preview of section 138 of the Act......."
1