Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.05 seconds)
Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt Ltd vs Manthan Broadband Services Pvt Ltd on 10 December, 2025
cites
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Sripati Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand & Anr. .......... ... on 7 January, 2019
In Sripati Singh v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra), the
MoU between the parties under which the cheques were
given included a stipulation that the cheques were being
given only to show to the banker, auditor etc. and "not for
depositing into Bank". It was in these facts that the
summoning order was quashed.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
M/S Gimpex Private Limited vs Manoj Goel on 8 October, 2021
29. It is also relevant to note that the Supreme Court
in Gimpex (P) Ltd. v. Manoj Goel, (2022) 11 SCC 705 has
considered the issue of liability arising out of a settlement
agreement and bolstered that once settlement is effectuated,
the parties cannot be allowed to go back on the same. . .
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Lalit Kumar Sharma And Anr vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 6 May, 2008
"24. The learned trial court has rightly observed that in Lalit
Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. (2008) 5 SCC 638, the
original complaint was still pending due to which it was held
that since the compromise did not fructify, the cheques issued
as per settlement could not be said to be issued towards
payment of debt. In the present case, the respondent withdrew
the complaint and it cannot be said that the compromise did
not fructify.
Arun Kumar vs Anita Mishra on 18 October, 2019
In Arun Kumar v. Anita Mishra, (2020) 16 SCC
118, it was held that whether a cheque issued in pursuance of a
settlement gives rise to a fresh cause of action, is to be seen in
the facts of each case.