Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
John K Abraham vs Simon C Abraham & Anr on 5 December, 2013
5. 1 (2014) BC 3 (SC) in the case of John
K.Abraham vs Simon C.Abrahm and another, whereinit
is held that, Dishonour of cheque- Serious lacuna and
defects in evidence of complainant - respondent - Strikes
at the root of complaint under Sec. 138 of Act - Presumption
under Sec. 118 and 139 of N.I. Act cannot be drawn - High
Court was in error in reversing judgment of acquittal of trial
Court - Vital defects in case of respondent- complainant as
noted by Chief Judicial Magistrate - Respondent was not
even aware of date when substantial amount of Rs.1.50lac
was advanced by him to appellant, as to who wrote cheque,
when and where transaction took place for which cheque
issued by appellant - Conclusion of High Court perverse and
unsustainable - Impugned order set aside - Conviction and
sentence imposed on appellant also set aside.
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008
7. II (2008) BC44(SC) in the case of Krishna
Janardhan Bhat vs Dhattathreya G.Hegde. wherein it is
held that, Loan -advancement of - Amount exceeding
Rs.20,000/- - Any advance taken by way of any loan of more
than Rs.20,000/- to be made by way of account payee
cheque only - Income Tax Act, 1961- Section 269SS, 271D.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
C. Antony vs K.G. Raghavan Nair on 1 November, 2002
1. V(2006) BC 295 (SC) in the case of C.Antony
vs K.G.Raghavan nair, wherein it is held that, the 3rd
circumstances relied upon by the trial court is in regard to
the difference in the ink found in the body of the cheque
as well as in the signature of the appellant. It is case of the
respondent that the appellant had filled up the cheque in it
entirety including its signature and had brought the
cheque to the office of Vijay kumar to be handed over to
the respondent but the learned Magistrate on a perusal of
the cheque, found that the ink used in the body of the
SCH-9 18 CC No.6616/2015
cheque was different from the ink used in the signature on
the cheque. Therefore he draw an inference that the case
put forth by the respondent was doubtful. Hence could not
be accepted.
S.R. Muralidar vs Ashok G.Y. on 17 April, 2001
2. ILR 2001 KAR 4127 S.R. Muralidar Vs Ashok
G.Y, wherein it is held that, In a cheque bounce case
complainant has challenged the order of Acquittal accepting
the defence of the drawer of the cheque that the complaint
who is his business associate and was allowed to deal with
the accounts and bank transactions has mis-used a cheque
signed by him and the same is mis utilized to fasten the
false liability.