Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.60 seconds)
Technology Information, Forecasting ... vs Ms Stanpack Pharma Pvt Ltd Ors on 21 December, 2024
cites
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
25. The issuance of the cheques and the signatures on them are
not disputed by the accused. Consequently, the statutory
presumptions under Section 118 read with Section 139 of the NI
Act are triggered. These presumptions establish that the cheques
were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability
in favor of the complainant. As held in Basalingappa v.
Mudibasappa, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 491, once the presumption
Digitally
signed by
SIDDHANT
SIDDHANT KUMAR
CT Case No. 465798/2016 KUMAR Date:
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
The Limitation Act, 1963
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
26. The legal notice was duly sent to the registered address of
the accused company. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act,
read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, enables the
Court to presume that the notice, once properly addressed and
dispatched by post, was received by the addressee. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed &
Anr., (2007) 6 SCC 555, clarified that the requirement of notice
under Section 138 NI Act is distinct from typical criminal law
procedures and aims to afford the drawer an opportunity to make
the payment within 15 days of receiving summons, if not earlier.
The judgment further underscores that a drawer cannot evade
liability by disputing the receipt of notice when statutory
presumptions under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and
Section 114 of the Evidence Act apply. In the present case, the
dispatch of the legal notice to the correct and registered addresses
suffices to meet the statutory requirement.
Sampelly Satyanarayan Rao vs Indian Renewable Energy Development ... on 19 September, 2016
In Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable
Energy Development Agency Ltd. (Criminal Appeal No. 867 of
2016), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the determination of
whether a post-dated cheque represents a legally enforceable
liability under Section 138 NI Act depends on the nature of the
transaction. If a liability or debt exists at the time the cheque is
issued or becomes due as per an agreement, the dishonor of such
cheques attracts Section 138. Even if the cheques are described
as "security," they will still represent liability if issued in
repayment of installments for a loan already disbursed. This
principle directly applies to the present case. In Sampelly
Satyanarayan Rao, the Court noted that cheques described as
"security" could still represent liability if linked to repayment
obligations in an agreement. The cheques in the present case,
though issued as part of a structured repayment mechanism, were
not contingent or conditional but were enforceable under the
agreed terms. Hence, the accused's defense that the cheques were
mere security instruments is untenable.