Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.23 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
State Of Tamil Nadu vs M. K Kandaswami Etc. Etc on 15 July, 1975
21. Loan was advanced way back in the year 2011. Instead of
making efforts to pay back the same, he tried every trick in the trade
to retain unjust enrichment. He has been able to procrastinate the
proceedings by taking false & frivolous pleas to avoid payment
towards the cheque. He has not shown any bonafide intention of
paying the amount of cheque in question. The conduct of the
appellant is, therefore, not in consonance with the aim and objective
of the Act as discussed above in M/s Laxmi Dyechem v. State of
Gujraj & Ors. (supra); State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami
(supra); and Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs. Chico Ursula D'Souza (supra).
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Goa Plast (P) Ltd vs Chico Ursula D'Souza on 20 November, 2003
21. Loan was advanced way back in the year 2011. Instead of
making efforts to pay back the same, he tried every trick in the trade
to retain unjust enrichment. He has been able to procrastinate the
proceedings by taking false & frivolous pleas to avoid payment
towards the cheque. He has not shown any bonafide intention of
paying the amount of cheque in question. The conduct of the
appellant is, therefore, not in consonance with the aim and objective
of the Act as discussed above in M/s Laxmi Dyechem v. State of
Gujraj & Ors. (supra); State of Tamil Nadu v. M.K. Kandaswami
(supra); and Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs. Chico Ursula D'Souza (supra).
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Jaipal Singh Rana vs Swaraj Pal Singh And Anr. on 22 February, 2008
15. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the
Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Jaipal Singh Rana vs. Swaraj
Pal, 149 (2008) DLT 882 wherein it was observed that there is no law
Crl. Appeal70/15 Page 9 of 13
that requires that particulars of the entire cheque should be filled in
by the drawer himself and further on the judgment of Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in Vijender Singh vs. Eicher Motors Limited & Anrs.
Crl.
Vijender Singh vs M/S Eicher Motors Limited & Anr. on 5 May, 2011
15. Reliance in this regard may also be placed on the
Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Jaipal Singh Rana vs. Swaraj
Pal, 149 (2008) DLT 882 wherein it was observed that there is no law
Crl. Appeal70/15 Page 9 of 13
that requires that particulars of the entire cheque should be filled in
by the drawer himself and further on the judgment of Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in Vijender Singh vs. Eicher Motors Limited & Anrs.
Crl.
Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
14. As the appellant himself admitted his signatures on the
cheque in question, presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I.
Act can be drawn, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Rangappa vs. Mohan AIR 2010 SC 1989 which is to
Crl. Appeal70/15 Page 8 of 13
the effect that :
"Once the cheque relates to the account of the
accused and he accepts and admits the signatures
on the said cheque, then initial presumption as
contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act has to be raised by the Court in
favour of the respondent."
1