Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.30 seconds)M/S. Modi Cements Ltd vs Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi on 2 March, 1998
Hence the submission made cannot be accepted. [See
Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (supra)]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
In the case of K.Bhaskaran v. Sankaran
Vaidhyan Balan (supra) the Apex Court held that once
the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of
the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118
of the N.I.Act can legally be drawn to infer that the
cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date
which the cheque bears.
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
In the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead)
by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs.and others,
others AIR
1994 (SC) 853, the Supreme Court observed that the
Court
of law are meant for imparting justice between
the parties. One who comes to the court, must come
with clean hands. It can be said without hesitation
that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no
right to approach the Court. He can be summarily
thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev vs The State Of Maharashtra And Shri Shambu ... on 7 February, 2003
22. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that
this Court in Yogendra Bhagatram Sachdev v. State of
Maharashtra,
Maharashtra 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 639, has observed that
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
18. As stated by the Apex Court in the case of
Hiten P.
Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, AIR 2001
SC 3897, the presumption available under Section 139
of the Act provides that it shall be presumed, unless
the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque
received the cheque, of the nature referred to in
Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of
any debt or other liability and the effect of this
presumption is to place the evidential burden on the
accused of proving that the cheque was not received by
the complainant towards the discharge of any
liability.
G. Selvaraj, M. Suseela Etc vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 September, 1997
Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh and others,
others 2004 CRI.L.J.
4252; Selvaraj v. State of Tamilnadu,
Tamilnadu Crimes 3
(2007) 435; Shri Shivshankar Tulsiram Pande v. State
of Maharashtra,
Maharashtra 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 722; and Keshav
Mahadeo Ingole v. State of Maharashtra,
Maharashtra 2004 ALL MR
(Cri) 459.
20. The entire defence raised by the accused is
that the alleged cheques, alleged to have been issued
by the accused, were returned unpaid because of "stop
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 13:36:59 :::
- 12 -
payment" instructions. According to him, once the
"stop payment" instructions are issued no offence
under Section 138 of NI Act can be said to have been
committed.