Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)
Cis No. 4389/18, Arun Kumar Mittal vs . Devki Gupta on 15 October, 2022 cites

K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999

9 As held in the case of K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan [(1999) 7 SCC 510], the offence under Section 138 of NI Act is completed by a concatenation of all the essential ingredients of the offence, and since in the present case, there is found to be an absence of a legally enforceable debt or other liability, meaning thereby that one of the essential ingredients of CIS No. 4389/18, Arun Kumar Mittal Vs. Devki Gupta Page 17 to 18 the offence under Section 138 is not made out, therefore, there is no requirement to dwell upon the existence of other ingredients, i.e., the reason for return of the cheque as unpaid, and the delivery of the mandatory legal notice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 3240 - Full Document

Dcm Financial Services Ltd vs J.N.Sareen & Anr on 13 May, 2008

[Kishan Rao Vs. Shankaguda, 2018 (8) SCC 165, Mosaraf Hossain Khan Vs. Bhageeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors (2006) 3 SCC 658, Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs. Chico Ursula D Souza (2004) 2 SCC 235, Monaben Ketanbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat (2004) 7 SCC 15, Prem Chand Vijay Kumar Vs. Yashpal Singh (2005) 4 SCC 417, DCM Financial Services Vs. J N Sareen (AIR 2008 SC 2255), K. Bhaskaran Vs. Shankaran Vaidhyan Balan (1999) 7 SCC 510 relied upon].
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 247 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next