Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Cri. Rev.No.181/2/ vs Daryao Singh Khatri on 14 December, 2011 cites

Narayanan Gangadhara Panicker vs T.R. Haridasan on 6 October, 1989

Burden is on here to show that the two cheques were taken away from her business premises. Apart from the intested testimony of the defendant there is no other independent evidence adduced to establish the story that cheques were stolen from her business premises. Defendant has not cared to examine any of the employees of the establishment. Counsel appearing for the defendant placed considerable reliance on the decision of this Court in Gandgadhara Panicker v. Haridasan 1989)2) KLT 730 and the contended that the presumption under Section 118 of the Act would arise only when there is a negotiable instrument which is admitted to have been executed. It is pointed out that when the fact of execution of the cheque itself is in dispute plaintiff 7 / 10 has to prove also passing of consideration. In other words, only when due exe cution has been established presumption under Section 118 (a) can be raised.
Kerala High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

M.G. Gurubasappa vs Rudriah on 23 November, 1967

Reference was also made to the decision of the Mysore High Court in Gurubasappa v. Rudriah AIR 1969 Mys. 269. We are of the view, in a given case cheque is issued by the drawer in favor of the payee and the same is dishonoured by the drawer's Bank stating "funds insufficient", holder of the cheque is entitled to get the amount as reflected in the cheque since the cheque is a negotiable instrument as per Section 118. We are of the view under Section 118 of the Act until the contrary is proved presumption can be made that every negotiable instrument was made for consideration. The expression "until the contrary is proved" is relevant under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. When the drawer of the cheque did not find any infirmity in the cheque presented by the payee presumption raised under Section 118 would apply unless the contrary is proved by the drawer of the cheque. Therefore mere fact that the payee's name and the amount shown in the cheque Is not in the handwriting of the drawer of the cheque that by itself is not a ground to contend that they are not validly issued or the cheques were not executed at all.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ram Lal Hans & Sons vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2001

ii) Ram Lal Hans & Sons Vs Union of India ­ 2002 II AD (Delhi) 473; in this case it has also been observed that:­ ".....the Union of India was served on 20th September, 1996 and application had been filed after an year seeking condensation of delay. In that view of the matter the Union of India necessarily had to show as to what prevented it from filing the objections within time. The application by itself is delightfully vague. It simply states that delay occurred due to seeking legal opinion from various departments. The normal principle of law is that a party seeking condensation of delay must explain each days delay. Herein what to talk of each days delay, the delay of months is not at all being explained. Stating that there was delay in various departments would not improve the version of the 5 / 10 objector. It is not known as to which department delayed and why and how the delay occurred. Consequently there is no hesitation in concluding that there is no specific averment as to why delay has occurred. Merely because it happens to be the Union of India/State necessarily does not imply that period of limitation will have no say in the matter or they can approach the court at any time. Delay occurs because of the vast administrative expense of the State but still it must be explained as to how the delay has occurred. It is not done. Therefore, there is no ground to condone the delay and as a necessary corollary the objections filed along with the application seeking condensation of delay fails and are dismissed."
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1