Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
I.C.D.S. Ltd vs Beena Shabeer & Anr on 12 August, 2002
The contention raised by the parties is no more res
integra, in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of I.C.D.S. Limited Vs.
Beena Shabeer and Another reported in (2002) 6 SCC 426.
In the said case, the husband of respondent No.1 namely
accused No.1 entered into a hire-purchase agreement with
the appellant company (ICDS Limited) for the purpose of
purchase of Maruti Car on hire-purchase basis.
Respondent No.1, his wife stood as guarantor in respect of
the hire-purchase facilities being made available to her
husband. In respect of the aforesaid transaction
respondent No.1 issued a cheque. The said cheque was
dishonored. The appellant issued a statutory notice calling
upon the respondent No.1 to pay the amount. Respondent
No.1 failed to comply with the demand, hence, action was
initiated under Section 138 of N.I. Act. The respondent
: 12 :
moved a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing
the complaint on the ground that there was no subsisting
debt in respect of which the respondent No.1 was liable to
issue the said cheque. The High Court having accepted
the plea quashed the proceedings on the reasoning that
the issuance of the cheque cannot be co-related for the
purpose of discharging any debt or liability and as such,
the complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act cannot be
maintainable. However, on appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in para 10 of the aforesaid judgment has held as
under:
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
K Narayana Nayak S/O Late K Ramakrishna ... vs M Shivarama Shetty S/O P D Shetty on 11 April, 2008
7. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed
reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of
K.Narayana Nayak Vs. M.Shivarama Shetty reported in
2008 (3) KCCR 1569, wherein it is held that the burden is
cast on the complainant to prove that the cheque was
issued towards the legally enforceable debt and not as a
collateral security and if the complainant failed to prove
the same, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
P.R. Shankar Rao vs Joseph And Joseph Regis Kalingarayar on 13 October, 2000
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on
the decision rendered by the Madras High Court in the case
of P.R. Shankar Rao Vs. Joseph and Joseph Regis
Kalingarayar reported in 2001 CLJ 2392.
1