Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Sarwan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 October, 2002
To substantiate his arguments, Ld.
Counsel for the accused has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
TDB Vs. Samudra Biopharma Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 16 of 27
Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2002
SC 3652.
Rajneesh Aggarwal vs Amit J. Bhalla on 4 January, 2000
In fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rajneesh Aggarwal Vs. Amit J. Bhalla 2001 AD (SC) 44 has
held as under:
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao vs Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors on 16 May, 2008
In Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao
Vs. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm and Others AIR 2008 SC 2898
it
was held as under:
"... ... ... The bare denial of the passing of the consideration
apparently does not appear to be any defence. Something which
is probable has to be brought on record for getting the benefit
of shifting the onus of proving to the plaintiff. To disprove the
presumption, defendant has to bring on record such facts and
circumstances upon consideration of which the court may either
believe that the consideration did not exist or its nonexistence
was so probable that a prudent man would, under the
circumstances of the case, shall act upon the plea that it did not
exist...."
The Technology Development Board Act, 1995
Damodar S.Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H on 3 May, 2010
iii. That the accused persons have already paid more than the cheque
amount, which has been admitted by the AR himself which means
that the entire liability has been discharged and the matter has been
compounded between the parties. Moreover property worth Rs.5
crores is still hypothecated with the complainant and the
complainant can very well recover the amount from that property.
The fact that the complainant is not recovering the said money
from hypothecated property implies that intention of the
complainant is not good and they just want to harass the accused
persons. To substantiate this argument, Ld. Counsel for the
accused has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Damodar S. Prabhu Vs. Sayed Babalal H. (2010) 5 SCC 663;
H.B. Chaturvedi vs State & Anr. on 12 November, 2014
v. That no evidence has been led by the complainant to show that
accused no.2 & 3 are Chairman and Managing Director of accused
no.1 and there is nothing to show that they were responsible for
day to day affairs of accused no.1 company. Accused no.2 & 3
have not signed the cheques and therefore they are not liable to be
prosecuted u/s 138 of N.I. Act. Ld. Counsel for the accused has
placed reliance on two case laws titled as H.B. Chaturvedi Vs.
State & Anr. 2006(1) ALD Cri 52 and Mrs. Aparna A. Shah
Vs. M/s Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Cri. Appl. No.813
of 2013; and
vi. That in the crossexamination of defence witness no question was
asked regarding the defence raised by the accused and therefore the
entire evidence has gone unrebutted which is deemed to have been
admitted by the complainant.
1