Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.52 seconds)
No.47 vs Also At : Mr. Vasudev Ingle on 13 October, 2020 cites

Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 1 August, 2014

2. Originally the present complaint was filed before this court on 14.3.2014. Thereafter, in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dashrath Rupsing Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2014 (3) KCCR 2313 (SC), this court by its order dtd.12.12.2014 returned the complaint to present the same before proper court within 30 days from the date of return. Accordingly, the complaint was presented before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on 31.1.2015 who alloted this complaint to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.30, which is Special Court for cases U/s.138 of N.I. Act , Nagpur for enquiry or trial in accordance with law. Thereafter the said Special Court took cognizance and recorded the sworn statement and issued process. Thereafter, when the accused appeared before said Special Court, further examination-in-chief and cross- examination of PW.1 was recorded. Thereafter, in view of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act 2016, this complaint came to be transferred to this court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 66 - Cited by 805 - V Sen - Full Document

Kishan Singh (D) Thru Lrs vs Gurpal Singh & Ors on 12 August, 2010

18. However in 2010 (8) SCC 775 - (Kishan Singh Vs Gurpal Singh and others), it is held that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as the criminal case is concerned and vice-versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In civil cases it is preponderance of probabilities while in criminal cases it is proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is neither any statutory nor any legal principle that findings recorded by the court either in civil or criminal proceedings shall be binding between the same parties while dealing with the 17 same subject matter and both the cases have to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. However, there may be cases where the provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, dealing with the relevance of previous Judgments in subsequent cases may be taken into consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 136 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Swiss Timing Ltd vs Organizing Committee Commonwealth ... on 28 May, 2014

20. The principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said decisions are partly applicable to the present case on hand. No doubt, the Hon'ble Arbitrator in his award as per Ex.D2 disallowed the claim of complainant for Rs.1,79,86,265/- from the accused including the transaction under 177 invoices which is subject matter of complaint in this case. In Ex.D2 the Hon'ble Arbitrator has directed the accused to pay a sum of Rs.3,27,000/- only. However the finding of Hon'ble Arbitrator in the said award is not binding in criminal trial in this in the present criminal case. It is not the case of the accused that the present case falls under the Provisions of Sections 41 to 43 of Evidence Act in any way. Therefore mere finding of fact recorded by the Hon'ble Arbitrator in the Arbitration proceedings is not binding of this court which is criminal court dealing with offence U/s.138 of N.I. Act. Moreover the 18 burden of proof in the Arbitration proceedings was on the present complainant who was petitioner in the said case. On the contrary in the present case, which is filed offence U/s. 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant can rely upon the presumption U/s. 139 of N.I. Act and initial burden of disproving the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability is on the accused and not on the complainant. Therefore, the findings given by the Hon'ble Arbitrator in Ex.D2-award is not binding on this criminal court in this criminal trial and as such the said award is not helpful to the accused in proof of the defence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 113 - Full Document

Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao vs Indian Renewable Energy Development ... on 19 September, 2016

23. However in (2016) 10 SCC 458 - (Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao Vs Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd.,), it is held that post dated cheque is well- recognized mode of payment and Sec.138 of N.I. Act is attracted, if on date of issuance of cheque, there existed liability or debt or amount which had become legally recoverable. Issuance of cheque and admission of signature thereon would invoke presumption of legally enforceable debt in favour of holder. The accused needs to rebut such presumption. Crucial point is whether cheque represents discharge of existing enforceable debt or liability or whether it represents advance amount without there being existing liability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 492 - A K Goel - Full Document

Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019

26. Counsel for the accused has relied upon decisions in 2006 CRI.L.J. 3140, 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 3462, 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1098 and 2010 ALL MR (Cri) 1105. No doubt there is no dispute regarding the principles of law laid down in the above decisions. However since the accused has failed to prove his defence and in view of above said Supreme Court decisions, the decisions relied upon by the accused are not helpful to the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 2207 - I Banerjee - Full Document

R. Vijayan vs Baby & Anr on 11 October, 2011

28. Point No.3: As discussed in connection with Point Nos.1 & 2, the complainant has proved its case as to commission of the offence punishable U/s.138 of N.I. Act by the accused. The punishment prescribed for the said offence is imprisonment for a period which may extend to two years or with fine. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, nature, year of the transaction, nature of the instrument involved, provisions of Sec.117 of N.I. Act, cost of litigation and the rate of interest proposed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2012 (1) SCC 260 (R.Vijayan Vs Baby), etc., this court is of the considered view that it is just and desirable to impose fine of Rs.90,00,000/- and out of the said amount a sum of Rs.10,000/- has to be remitted to the State and the remaining amount of Rs.89,90,000/- is to be given to the complainant as compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.PC and accordingly Point No.3 is answered in Affirmative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 845 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1