Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.23 seconds)
Goaplast Pvt. Ltd., Company ... vs Shri Chico Ursula Dsouza, Resident Of ... on 16 March, 2002
cites
M/S. Modi Cements Ltd vs Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi on 2 March, 1998
The Judgment in Modi Cement
Ltd., v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (supra), was followed by the
Supreme Court in NEPC Micon Ltd., v. Magma Leasing Ltd.,
(supra) wherein reference has been made to the decision
of 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Modi Cements
Ltd., V. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (supra) dealing with a
similar contention and interpreting Section 138 of the
Act. The Apex Court held :
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Nepc Micon Limited And Others vs Magma Leasing Limited on 29 April, 1999
The Judgment in Modi Cement
Ltd., v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (supra), was followed by the
Supreme Court in NEPC Micon Ltd., v. Magma Leasing Ltd.,
(supra) wherein reference has been made to the decision
of 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Modi Cements
Ltd., V. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (supra) dealing with a
similar contention and interpreting Section 138 of the
Act. The Apex Court held :
Anil Kumar Sawhney vs Gulshan Rai on 11 October, 1993
The Apex Court in the said decision further held that a
postdated cheque is not payable on demand till a
particular date and it is not a cheque in the eyes of law
till the date it becomes payable on demand. When a posted
dated cheque is written or drawn, it is only a bill of
exchange and as such, the provisions of Section 138 are
not applicable to the said instrument.
Section 82 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Ashok Yeshwant Badave vs Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar & Anr on 14 March, 2001
In Anil Kumar Sawhneys case which has been
referred to and relied upon by the learned trial Judge,
as well as in the subsequent Judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of Ashok Yeshwant Babdave v. Surendra
Madhavarao Nighojakar, , it
is held :