Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.24 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
Same was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee [(2001) 6 SCC 16].
Sanjay Arora vs Monika Singh on 31 May, 2017
21. It is also argued on behalf of accused that though complainant stated in his
testimony that he sourced funds for present loan from his father, he has failed to
examine his father as a witness. Ld. Counsel for accused also submitted that
neither of the two witnesses to the receipt Ex. CW-1/9 were examined in evidence
by complainant. However, regarding sources of funds, complainant in his
examination-in-chief stated that he borrowed the money for present loan from his
father. He stated that he works in transport business with his father and his father
earns about Rs. 1,90,000/- per month from the business. Therefore the
complainant sufficiently disclosed his sources of funds. Moreover mere omission
to examine witnesses in corroboration of case of complainant, is inconsequential.
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in Sanjay Arora V. Monika Singh, Crl. Appeal
No. 98/2017, dated 31.05.2017 held: