Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2021
reported
in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 46 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has referred to the earlier decisions of Rohitbhai Jivanlal
Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr reported in (2019) 18
SCC 106, Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019)
4 SCC 197, Kalamani Tex and Anr. V. P.Balasubramanian
reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 and Basalingappa Vs.
Mudibasappa reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418 and held that
-8-
CRL.A No. 18 of 2017
when the accused has raised probable defence regarding the
financial capacity of the complainant and acquitted the accused,
the interference by the High Court in such a finding of acquittal,
unless the same is perverse and illegal.
Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019
25. Further, the supreme Court in Rajaram S/o.
Sriramulu Naidu (since deceased) through L.Rs. Vs.
Maruthachalam (since deceased) through L.Rs. referring
to the decision of Rohit Bhai Supra and Bir Singh v. Mukesh
Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 and at para -12
referred to the decision of Baslingappa and Mudibasappa
(supra) and at paragraph Nos.12, 14, 21, 29 and 30 it is held
as under:
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian on 10 February, 2021
reported
in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 46 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has referred to the earlier decisions of Rohitbhai Jivanlal
Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr reported in (2019) 18
SCC 106, Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar reported in (2019)
4 SCC 197, Kalamani Tex and Anr. V. P.Balasubramanian
reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 and Basalingappa Vs.
Mudibasappa reported in (2019) 5 SCC 418 and held that
-8-
CRL.A No. 18 of 2017
when the accused has raised probable defence regarding the
financial capacity of the complainant and acquitted the accused,
the interference by the High Court in such a finding of acquittal,
unless the same is perverse and illegal.
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
25. Further, the supreme Court in Rajaram S/o.
Sriramulu Naidu (since deceased) through L.Rs. Vs.
Maruthachalam (since deceased) through L.Rs. referring
to the decision of Rohit Bhai Supra and Bir Singh v. Mukesh
Kumar reported in (2019) 4 SCC 197 and at para -12
referred to the decision of Baslingappa and Mudibasappa
(supra) and at paragraph Nos.12, 14, 21, 29 and 30 it is held
as under:
Veerayya vs G K Madivalar on 30 November, 2011
financial capacity of the complainant is questioned complainant
has to establish his/her financial capacity. Learned ACMM has
relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
VEERAYYA v. G.K.MADIVALAR reported in 2012(3) KCCR
2057, at paragraph No.17 it is held as under:-