Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.51 seconds)
Shikha Sadh vs Ms A N Buildwell Private Limited Ors on 24 March, 2026 cites

Shikha Sadh vs A.N Builwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors on 14 January, 2019

Accused no. 2 S. K. Hooda stated that he was one of the directors and authorized signatories of accused no. 1 company at the relevant time when the cheque was issued. He further stated that he was not the active director. He further stated that he left the company on 11.09.2015. He further stated that the cheque in question bears his signature and it was issued under the CNR No. 3407/2015 620536/2016 Shikha Sadh Vs. A. N. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. & Ors PS New Friends Colony Page no. 4 of 34 Digitally signed by AZAD SEHRAWAT AZAD SEHRAWAT Date:
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008

37. In order to rebut the presumption of Section 139 of the Act, the accused is not required to bring direct evidence but should adduce sufficient cogent evidence or he/she can rely upon the circumstances which shows the probability of non-existence of the consideration for the same. Accused has to prove his defence on the scale of preponderance of possibilities, as has been held in Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 3169 - J M Panchal - Full Document
1   2 Next