Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 26 (0.11 seconds)
1999, In The Judgment Reported As K. ... vs . Sankaran Vaidhyan on 12 August, 2013 cites

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

29. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and have also perused the records. A careful reading of the affidavit of complainant in rebuttal evidence and cross examination of complainant dated 25.06.2011 would show that the complainant has admitted that amounts mentioned in his rebuttal affidavit prior to February 2008 was given and paid back to him in due course, meaning thereby, that none of the moneys deposited by him in the bank account of the accused upto February 2008 were due towards the accused and thereafter a total sum of Rs. 2,45,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the bank accounts of the accused and the same was repaid by the accused to the complainant on the same dates when the cash was deposited by the complainant in the bank accounts of accused. Thus admittedly the accused had repaid the entire amount deposited by the complainant in the bank accounts of accused in due course and even if the payment of Rs. 98,000/- made by the accused to the complainant on 06.05.2008 by way of a cheque is deemed to have been made by the CC NO. 1515/12 Vijay Bhola v. Vijay Nand Judgment dated 12.08.2013 Page 29 of 33 accused otherwise than towards the loan in question, still there are at least 6 deposit slips between 13.05.2008 and the date of presentation of cheques in question which, if read alongwith the admission on the part of the complainant that the accused used to deposit in his bank account and by way of cash amounts towards the loan in question, would reduce the liability of the accused under the loan agreement in question much below the cheques amount in question and as such despite the fact that initially the cheques in question were issued for a valid consideration but subsequently i.e. on the date of presentation of cheques in question, part of the consideration had already ceased to exist in view of the payments made by the accused to the complainant towards loan in question and as such the cheques which were admittedly given by the accused to the complainant simultaneously at the time of availing the loan in question could not have been presented by the complainant and if presented, dishonor of the same would not attract the liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in view of provisions of Section 45 of the NI Act and in view of judgment of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Joseph Sartho v. Gopinathan Nair, 2009 (2) Crimes 463 (Kerala) and of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Alliance Infrastructure Project Pvt. Ltd. v. Vinay Mittal, (2010) 115 DRJ 241. The relevant paras from the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 315 - V K Jain - Full Document
1   2 3 Next