Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.37 seconds)
Smt. Mahadevi Yallappa Bagi vs Krishi Laxmi Agro Industries 1-C, Kiadb on 27 January, 2026 cites

M/S. Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) ... vs Mac Industries Ltd, S. Pichalah, ... on 13 October, 1998

In Balaji Seafoods [Balaji Seafoods Exports (India) Ltd. v. Mac Industries Ltd., (1999) 1 CTC 6 (Mad)] , the Madras High Court held: (CTC pp. 8-9, para 7) "7. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes it clear that where the cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence under Section 138 of the Act. The Explanation reads that for the purposes of this section, 'debt or other liability' means a legally enforceable debt or liability."
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 93 - Full Document

Shanku Concretes Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Gujarat on 30 November, 1999

11. The Gujarat High Court in Shanku Concretes [Shanku Concretes (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat, 2000 Cri LJ 1988 (Guj)] dealing with Section 138 of the NI Act held that to attract Section 138 of the NI Act, there must be subsisting liability or debt on the date when the cheque was delivered. The very fact that the payment was agreed to some future date and there was no debt or liability on the date of delivery of the cheques would take the case out of the purview of Section 138 of the NI Act. While holding so, the Gujarat
Gujarat High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 76 - J R Vora - Full Document
1   2 Next