Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.28 seconds)
Sukh Sareen vs Vivek Mishra on 13 October, 2025 cites

Sheelawanti And Anr., ... vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 3 February, 1995

a.​ Issue 1 - Issuance of Cheque: This ingredient pertains to the issuance of the cheque in question itself. The Accused person had in his notice of accusation admitted the signature on the cheques in question. In the cross-examination as DW-1, the accused has also admitted filling the dates on the cheques in question. It is observed that the plea of the accused that the particulars of the cheque in question were not filled by him is of no help; as the signature of the accused on the cheque is not disputed. Reliance can be placed, at this juncture, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ravi Chopra Vs. State and Anr. (2008) 102DRJ147, held: "Section 20 NI Act talks of "inchoate stamped instruments" and states that if a person CT CASE/1790/2017​ Mrs Sukh Sareen Versus Sh. Vivek Mishra​ ​ ​ page 14/ 25 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi signs and delivers a paper stamped in accordance with the law and "either wholly blank or have written thereon an incomplete negotiable instrument" such person thereby gives prima facie authority to the holder thereof "to make or complete as the case may be upon it, a negotiable instrument for any amount specified therein and not exceeding the amount covered by the stamp." "A collective reading of the above provisions shows that even under the scheme of the NI Act it is possible for the drawer of a cheque to give a blank cheque signed by him to the payee and consent either impliedly or expressly to the said cheque being filled up at a subsequent point in time and presented for payment by the drawee. There is no provision in the NI Act which defines the difference in the handwriting or the ink pertaining to the material particulars filled up in comparison with the signature thereon as constituting a 'material alteration' for the pur- poses of Section 87 NI Act. What, however, is essential is that the cheque must have been signed by the drawer."
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 746 - D K Jain - Full Document

Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019

Further, in Bir singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 it was held that:-"It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted." Hence, In the present case, Prima facie the ingredient that the cheque was issued to the complainant has been satisfied as the accused admitted his signature on the cheque and the account being maintained by him. Having admitted the basic ingredient, the presumption is drawn against the accused and now the accused would have to prove that the cheque in question was not issued by him; by way of rebuttal of the presumption drawn against him. Whether the accused was able to successfully rebut the adverse CT CASE/1790/2017​ Mrs Sukh Sareen Versus Sh. Vivek Mishra​ ​ ​ page 15/ 25 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi presumption is dealt in detail in the issue no. 6; However, the issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the complainant and the presumption is drawn against the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 2207 - I Banerjee - Full Document
1   2 Next