Rajinder Kumar Son Of Som Nath And ... vs Prabha Khanna Wife Of Mohinder Khanna ... on 22 March, 2013
GUPTA 2025.01.08
Rajinder Kumar Vs. Vikas Khanna 15:04:32
+0530
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 87 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
Even in Raangappa (supra) relied
upon by the learned counsel for the appellant
it was observed that failure on the part of the
accused to reply to the statutory notice under
Section 138 of the Act lead to inference that
there was merit in complainant's version."
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
In Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows :
Kaluram And Anr vs Sita Ram And Ors on 8 August, 2019
"Admittedly, no reply to the legal notice was
sent by her thereby rebutting the allegations
made by the complainant. As far back in the
year 1980, in Kaluram V. Sita Ram, 1980
RCR Note 44, it was held by this Court that
when serious allegations are made in a notice
and defendant failed to sent any reply, then
the allegations are deemed to have been
admitted.
M/S The Jammu & Kashmir Bank vs Abhishek Mittal on 26 May, 2011
It has been observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
The Jammu and Kashmir Bank Vs. Abhishek Mittal, Crl. A. No.
294/2011 (decided on 26.05.2011) as follows :