Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.46 seconds)Section 65 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Virender Singh vs Laxmi Narain And Anr. on 1 November, 2006
I find myself unable to agree with
the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the complainant as the same
contention was put forth by counsel for the respondent/complainant
before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Virender Singh's Case (Supra)
CC NO. 1538/12
Nand Kishore Vs Dinesh Kumar
Judgment dated 19.07.2013 Page 14 of 18
and the same was rejected by HMJ Badar Durrez Ahmed of Delhi High
Court in the following words:
Mohd. Salimuddin vs Misri Lal And Another on 12 March, 1986
"In the present case neither party is a victim of exploitation.
Both had voluntarily and by their free will joined hands to
flout the law. Therefore, in terms of the Supreme Court
decisions in Sita Ram v. Radha Bai (supra) and Mohd.
Salimuddin (supra) themselves, the parties being in pari
delicto, the doctrine would apply and the sum of Rs.
80,000/- could not be recovered in a court of law. Meaning
thereby that there did not exist any legally enforceable debt
or liability for the discharge of which it could be said that
the cheque in question was issued. Consequently, Section
138 of the said Act would not be attracted."