Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment passed in
Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 and APS Forex Services
Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shakti International Fashion Linkers & Ors. 2020 SCC OnLine
SC 193. In the present case, the complainant has failed to prove the same as
merely stating that he had advanced the loan from his savings will not
discharge the burden of the complainant. Even otherwise, he has not placed on
record his ITR to prove his financial capacity despite being an income tax
assesses. Admittedly, the advancement of loan amount was also not shown in
the ITR.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Sasseriyil Joseph vs Devassia on 22 September, 2000
In Vijay Polymers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Vinnay Aggarwal (supra),
relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sasseriyil
Joseph (supra), it has been observed that, cheques issued for a
timebarred debt would not fall within the definition of 'legally
enforceable debt', which is the essential requirement for a
SONIKA
Digitally signed by SONIKA
Date: 2022.01.27 12:48:40
+05'30'
CC No. 5790/2020 C.L. Gupta Vs. Rajesh Singh Page no.16/19
complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act; the extended meaning of
debt or liability has been explained in the Explanation to the
Section which means a legally enforceable debt or liability.
Girdhari Lal Rathi vs P.T.V. Ramanujachari And Anr. on 20 January, 1997
In
support of his submission that the dishonoured cheque in
question is not in connection with any legally enforceable debt,
reliance was placed by him on Girdhari Lal Rathi v. P.T.V.
Ramanujachari and another, 1998 Bank J. 127 : 2000 Do Ch.
(A.P.)420. He, therefore, submits that there is no case for
interference with the acquittal.