Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)
Pankaj Gidwani vs Kusum Bhargava on 2 January, 2013 cites

M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 4 July, 2006

12. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the case entitled M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs State of Kerala & Anr 2006 (6) Sec 39 and M/s Alliance Infrastructure vs. S. Vinay Mittal Crl. M.C. No. 2224/2009 decided on 18th January 2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. I have highest regard for the case laws cited on behalf of the accused. However, the same has been pronounced in different context and is of no help to the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 4105 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

In case entitled as "Rangappa vs Sri Mohan" [(2010), 11, Supreme Court Cases 441] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held that the bare denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any defence. To disprove the presumptions, the defendant has to bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration on which the Court may either believe that the consideration does not exist or its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it does not exist and it was held that there is an initial presumption, which favours the complainant in the sense that the presumption mandated by Sec. 139 of NI Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Since the accused did admit that the signatures on the cheques was his, the statutory presumption comes into play and same has not been rebutted even with regard to the material submitted by the complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

M/S Alliance Infrastructure Project ... vs Vinay Mittal on 18 January, 2010

12. Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon the case entitled M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs State of Kerala & Anr 2006 (6) Sec 39 and M/s Alliance Infrastructure vs. S. Vinay Mittal Crl. M.C. No. 2224/2009 decided on 18th January 2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. I have highest regard for the case laws cited on behalf of the accused. However, the same has been pronounced in different context and is of no help to the accused.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 315 - V K Jain - Full Document

Sachin Sangal vs Pieco Call Tech. Pvt. Ltd. on 28 July, 2010

In the judgment entitled "Pradeep Aggarwal & Ors vs Y. K. Goel", Cr. M. C. 66/2009 (Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), where it was held that complaints u/s 138 NI Act is a summary trial and accused should first disclose his defence and merely saying "He is innocent" or "He plead not guilty" will not be sufficient and onus is on the accused to show that no offence could have been deemed to be committed by him for some specific reasons and defences.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 65 - S N Dhingra - Full Document
1   2 Next