Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
38. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme court in Basalingappa Vs.
Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418 that :
Section 103 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Sudha Renukaiah & Ors vs State Of A.P on 13 April, 2017
30. The contention of accused that in absence of any cogent
evidence of advacement of loan, the trial court has to acquit the
accused. Ld. Counsel for accused on this point relied on judgment of
Hon'ble supreme court titled as Sudha Renukaiah and others vs
State of UP, 2017 (2) RCR ( crl) 693 wherein it is held that "where
in a case, two views are possible , the one which favours the accused,
has to be addopted by the Court.
M/S Prestige Lights Ltd vs State Bank Of India on 20 August, 2007
16. Ld. Counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble
supre Court titled as Prestie Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India
(2007) 8SCC 449. held that:
Ajay Kumar Parmar vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 September, 2012
41. Ld. Counsel relied upon Power of the Magistrate for sending a
document for expert's opinion in respect of the dishonoured cheque
u/s 138 of NI act and stated that and denial of the said opportunity
would lead to an unfair trial u/s 45 of Indian Evidence Act and relied
on casse AIR 20212 SCW 5492 between Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs.
State of Rajasthan wherein it is held that: