Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.30 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Kumar Exports vs. Sharma Carpets
(2009) 2 SCC 513', while elaborating upon the interplay of section 118(a)
r/w 139 of the N I Act, has held that:
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 315 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 4 July, 2006
12. It is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the
person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an
offence under Section 138 of the N I Act. The Act also raises two
presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque namely first, in Section
RISHABH
118(a) which says that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for TANWAR
consideration, and, second, a presumption under Section 139, that the holder Digitally signed by
RISHABH TANWAR
Date: 2025.03.11
15:06:34 +0530
CC No. 13644/2016 M/s Narain Timbers vs. M/s Salach Enterprises pg. no. 6/20
of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 138 for
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Analysing all the
concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983',
noted at para 23 Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin
Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35; M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State
of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Krishna Janardhan Bhat v.
Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54; Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets,
(2009) 2 SCC 513; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441]:
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008
12. It is only when all the aforementioned ingredients are satisfied that the
person who had drawn the cheque can be deemed to have committed an
offence under Section 138 of the N I Act. The Act also raises two
presumptions in favour of the holder of the cheque namely first, in Section
RISHABH
118(a) which says that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for TANWAR
consideration, and, second, a presumption under Section 139, that the holder Digitally signed by
RISHABH TANWAR
Date: 2025.03.11
15:06:34 +0530
CC No. 13644/2016 M/s Narain Timbers vs. M/s Salach Enterprises pg. no. 6/20
of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 138 for
discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Analysing all the
concerned provisions of law and various pronouncements in this regard, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in 'Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983',
noted at para 23 Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin
Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35; M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State
of Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Krishna Janardhan Bhat v.
Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54; Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets,
(2009) 2 SCC 513; Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441]: