Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)
Rajender vs Yogender Tyagi on 26 September, 2018 cites

M/S. Sarav Investment & Financial ... vs Llyods Register Of Shipping Indian ... on 11 October, 2007

29.Sarav Investment & Financial Consultancy [Sarav Investment & Financial Consultancy (P) Ltd. v. Llyods Register of Shipping Indian Office Staff Provident Fund, (2007) 14 SCC 753 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 935] led to the view being taken by the High Courts that a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act filed before the expiry of 15 days of service of notice was premature and such complaint could not be treated as complaint in the eye of the law and criminal proceedings initiated are liable to be quashed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 59 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Narsingh Das Tapadia vs Goverdhan Das Partani & Anr on 6 September, 2000

"28. For about 7 years since the decision was given by this Court in Narsingh Das Tapadia [Narsingh Das Tapadia v. Goverdhan Das Partani, (2000) 7 SCC 183 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1326] , the various High Courts, as indicated above, continued to take the view that presentation of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the accrual of the cause of action does not render it not maintainable if cognizance had been taken by the Magistrate after expiry of 15 days of the period of notice. In such matters, no illegality or impropriety was found to have been committed by the Magistrate in taking cognizance upon such complaint.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 158 - Full Document

Kusum Ingots And Alloys Ltd vs Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. And Ors on 23 February, 2000

31. Section 138 of the NI Act has been analysed by this Court in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. [Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd., (2000) 2 SCC 745 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 546 : AIR 2000 SC 954] wherein this Court said that the following ingredients are required to be satisfied for making out a case under Section 138 of the NI Act: (SCC p. 753, para 10) "(i) a person must have drawn a cheque on an account maintained by him in a bank for payment of a certain amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge of any debt or other liability;
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 663 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document
1   2 Next