Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.30 seconds)
Senbo Engineering Ltd. & Others vs Ahlcon Ready Mix Concrete Division Of ... on 10 February, 2009 cites

M/S. Modi Cements Ltd vs Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi on 2 March, 1998

6. Appearing for the respondent Mr. Rishi Kapoor, learned Advocate refers to the judgment in Modi Cements Ltd. v. Kuchil Kumar Nandi (supra) which overruled the earlier judgment in K.K. Sidharthan v. T.P. Praveena Chandran (1996) 6 SCC 369 and categorically held that even if a cheque is dishonoured because of a stop payment instruction Section 138 NI Act would get attracted. It is submitted that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Syed Mahommed Yaqub was rendered at a time when the law had not been settled by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 411 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document

Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd vs State, Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 10 April, 2007

11. There is no merit in the contention concerning the minimum averment in the complaint as regards Petitioner No.2 who is the Managing Director of Petitioner No.1 The decisions in S.M.S Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla and Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi) answer the point against the petitioners. The other contention on merits, that no liability existed, cannot obviously be gone into at this stage and will have to await the conclusion of the trial. The question that is required to be answered is whether when the complaint in the instant case is read as a whole a prima facie case can be said to be made out for proceeding against the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 NI Act. The answer is unambiguously in the affirmative. There is, therefore, no ground for this Court to interfere in CRL.M.C. No. 1753/2008 Page 7 of 8 exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal complaint against the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 74 - S B Sinha - Full Document

S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005

11. There is no merit in the contention concerning the minimum averment in the complaint as regards Petitioner No.2 who is the Managing Director of Petitioner No.1 The decisions in S.M.S Pharmaceuticals v. Neeta Bhalla and Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. State (NCT of Delhi) answer the point against the petitioners. The other contention on merits, that no liability existed, cannot obviously be gone into at this stage and will have to await the conclusion of the trial. The question that is required to be answered is whether when the complaint in the instant case is read as a whole a prima facie case can be said to be made out for proceeding against the petitioners for the offence under Section 138 NI Act. The answer is unambiguously in the affirmative. There is, therefore, no ground for this Court to interfere in CRL.M.C. No. 1753/2008 Page 7 of 8 exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the criminal complaint against the petitioners.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 1836 - A Kumar - Full Document

Syed Mahommed Yaqub vs Imperial Bank Of India on 26 June, 1940

10. With the law having been so unambiguously stated in several decisions of the Supreme Court, this Court is unable to accept the submission that a cheque which is dishonoured for the reason of a stop payment instruction is not a cheque within the meaning of Section 138 NI Act or that the offence thereunder is not attracted in such instance. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Syed Mahommed Yaqub v. Imperial Bank of India and the earlier decisions in Cohen v. Hale, William Joseph Reade v. The Royal Bank, Wianholt v. Spitta are therefore to no avail in this regard. The submission that any or all of the above judgments of the Supreme Court are per incuriam or sub silentio does not impress this court. They in fact provide a complete answer to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this issue.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 Next