Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.16 seconds)
Jaspal Singh vs Nand Lal on 22 August, 2015 cites

Rajesh Aggarwal & Ors. vs State & Anr. on 21 November, 2011

18. Heard both sides on sentence. Complaint was preferred in the year 2008. It pertains to cheques, which were issued for being encashed in the year 2008. On account of contest based on false story the proceedings got protracted in defiance of the law laid in Rajesh Aggarwal & Ors. Vs. State and Anr. ­ [2010 (2) The Law Reports on Crime 188 (Delhi)] and thereby depriving the complainant of his lawful dues all along. I do not find the order on sentence to be harsh or unjust.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - M L Mehta - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

17. For the foregoing reasons, I endorse the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court rejecting the story of misusing of the cheque by the complainant. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that learned trial Court improperly raised the presumption under Section 118 (b) and 139 of the Act by misplacing reliance on Rangappa's case (supra). In his submissions, sufficient material has not been adduced to show existence of any legally enforceable debt or liability. I find no merit in the arguments to above effect. The complainant has discharged burden of proof in respect of necessary ingredients on the basis of which presumptions arise under Section 118 (b) and 139 of the Act to the effect that the cheques in question had been issued for consideration and for discharge of debt or other liability owed by the drawer in favour of the holder / payee. The defence CA No. 58/15 Page 11/12 evidence led by the accused does not inspire confidence not even when tested on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Thus the presumptions have not been rebutted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 Next