Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.84 seconds)
Cisco Systems Capital India Pvt Ltd vs Manthan Broadband Services Pvt Ltd on 10 December, 2025 cites

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 82 - S B Sinha - Full Document

United Bank Of India vs Sh. Naresh Kumar And Ors on 18 September, 1996

48.In this regard, it is apposite to refer to United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar, 1996 INSC 1073, wherein it was held that procedural defects which do not go to the root of the matter should not be permitted to defeat a just cause and a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural irregularity. Even in the absence of a valid board resolution, where pleadings have been signed by one of the officers of a company, a Corporation can ratify the said action of its officer in signing the pleadings. Such ratification can be express or implied. The Court can. on the basis of the evidence on record, and after taking all the circumstances of the case, specially with regard to the conduct of the trial come, to the conclusion that the corporation had ratified the act of signing of the pleading by its officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 697 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 13 October, 2022

71.The phrase "preponderance of probabilities" in the case of Charles R. Cooper v. F.W. Slade, (1857-59) 6 HLC 746 was held to mean "more probable and rational view of the case" and this definition has stood the test of time, having been quoted with approval several times by Indian Courts, including as recently as in 2022 in Ramanand v. State of U.P., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396 para 100.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 54 - Cited by 73 - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

28.The Complainant is to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt while the Accused Persons need only prove the defence to the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Section 139 NI Act and Section 118 NI Act read together mandate that upon the establishment of foundational facts, the Court shall raise a presumption that the negotiable instrument passed for consideration and the cheque was issued for discharging a legally enforceable debt. The presumption is rebuttable and the reverse onus falls on the Accused to establish a probable defence which creates a doubt as to the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. [See Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 Digitally signed by VAIBHAV VAIBHAV PRATAP PRATAP SINGH SINGH Date:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 Next