Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.46 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 91 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
77. To sum up his submissions, Ld. counsel for the accused has
placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441,
Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513
and Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418,
and it has been submitted that for the purposes of the
present proceedings the accused is merely required to raise a
probable defence and prove the same on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities. It has further been submitted
that for the same, it is not necessary that the accused should
enter the witness stand and the accused can raise a probable
defence even on the basis of the averments made in the
complaint itself and by way of cross-examination of the
complainant. It has further been submitted that since this is
a criminal case, it is the bounden duty of the complainant to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Section 73 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008
77. To sum up his submissions, Ld. counsel for the accused has
placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India in Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441,
Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513
and Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418,
and it has been submitted that for the purposes of the
present proceedings the accused is merely required to raise a
probable defence and prove the same on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities. It has further been submitted
that for the same, it is not necessary that the accused should
enter the witness stand and the accused can raise a probable
defence even on the basis of the averments made in the
complaint itself and by way of cross-examination of the
complainant. It has further been submitted that since this is
a criminal case, it is the bounden duty of the complainant to
prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Shri Satya Narain Garg Through His Legal ... vs Dcm Ltd. & Others on 5 December, 2011
Reliance has also been placed on behalf of the
accused on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Delhi in Satya Narain Garg vs. DCM Ltd. & Ors., 2011
SCC OnLine Del 5205, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held
as follows: