Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)
Sh. Deepak Kumar Chakraborty vs Sh. P. P. Khurana on 5 January, 2018 cites

Shyam Pal vs Dayawati Besoya And Anr on 28 October, 2016

In V.K. Bansal's case (supra), Bensan's case (supra) and Shyam Pal's case (supra), it has been clearly held/observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the direction regarding concurrent running of sentence under Section 427 of the Code can be passed with regard to substantive sentence only and provisions of Section 427 of the Code do not permit a direction for the concurrent running of the substantive sentences with sentences CA No.01/2017 Deepak Kumar Chakraborty v. P.P. Khurana & Ors. Page No.13 of 14 awarded in default of payment of fine/compensation. In the present case and other connected seven cases, no substantive sentence has been passed by the learned Trial Court and sentence of six months have been passed only in default of payment of fine/compensation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 72 - A Roy - Full Document

K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999

In K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan (AIR 1999 SC 3762), it was observed that as the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of N.I Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears. Section 139 of the NI Act enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharges of any debt or liability. The burden was on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. The accused could not rebut the said presumption. Hence, it has been proved on record that appellant had issued cheque no.244595 (Ex. CW-1/2) for the sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for discharge of his partial liability.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 3240 - Full Document
1