Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
K.K. Sidharthan vs T.P. Praveena Chandran And Another on 8 October, 1996
14. Ld. defence counsel has placed reliance on KK
Sidharthan Vs. TP Praveena Chandran & Anr [1997] 24
CLA 126 (SC) and has argued that the complainant was aware
about the fact that the account of the accused has been closed
but despite that the cheque was presented. However, reliance on
the above judgment would be of no avail to the complainant as
the facts of the above case were completely different from the
present case. In that case, the fact regarding stop payment was
intimated to the complainant through notice and on the relevant
date there was sufficient balance in the account of the accused
to honour the cheque, which is not the case here.
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Kusum Ingots And Alloys Ltd vs Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. And Ors on 23 February, 2000
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots
& Alloys Ltd. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. & Others.
AIR 2000 SC 954, has succinctly spelt out the essential
ingredients for making out a case under section 138 NI Act. The
same are quoted hereunder:
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao vs Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors on 16 May, 2008
8. At this juncture it would be apropos to refer to the
presumptions envisaged under the NI Act. Section 118(a)
provides that every negotiable instrument shall be presumed to
have been made or drawn for consideration. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara
Rao Vs. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors. AIR 2008 SC
2898 has thus held:
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
In Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath
Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
opined as under:
1