Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)The Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920
S. Sundaram Pillai, Etc vs V.R. Pattabiraman Etc on 24 January, 1985
10. The submission with reference to the interpretation of Explanation as appended to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the basis of the decision in Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabiraman, (supra), is in my view,is correct and acceptable.
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 140 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 421 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Bharath N. Mehtha And Another vs Mansi Finance (Chennai)Ltd. By Its ... on 18 February, 1999
31. In yet another case decided by me in CRL. O.P. Nos. 704 and 796 of 1999 dated 18-2-99 Bharath N. Mehtha v. Mansi Finance (Chennai) Ltd. (1999 (2) Mad LW (Cri) 483), I had an occasion to consider the question and held that even the declaration by the Insolvency Court that the accused are insolvents would not disentitle the complainant to seek for remedy by way of penal action before the criminal Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act said to have been committed earlier by the accused.
Anil Kumar Parolia vs Md. Shafique Khan And Ors. on 15 October, 1996
19. The other decisions cited by the counsel in Anil Kumar Parolia v. Md. Shafique Khan 1997 Cri LJ 717 and Ramasingh Amarsingh v. Kandasamy Textiles 1994 MLJ (Cri) 706 would not help in any way in favour of the accused, as the issue in question has not been dealt with.
Ramsingh Amarsingh And Others vs Kandasamy Textiles on 21 April, 1994
19. The other decisions cited by the counsel in Anil Kumar Parolia v. Md. Shafique Khan 1997 Cri LJ 717 and Ramasingh Amarsingh v. Kandasamy Textiles 1994 MLJ (Cri) 706 would not help in any way in favour of the accused, as the issue in question has not been dealt with.
1