Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.73 seconds)
Nusun Genetic Research Ltd And Others vs The State Of Telangana And Another on 10 December, 2015
cites
Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Companies Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 300 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
Ruby Leather Exports vs K. Venu on 10 December, 1993
(xii) There is no ambiguity in clause (a) of section 142 of the Act,
which prohibits or excludes complaints being initiated by Power
of Attorney, agents of the payee or the holder in due course. A
Power of Attorney, will be competent to initiate a private
complaint by stepping into the shoes of the payee or the holder
in due course; M/s. Ruby Leather Exports v. K. Venu, (1994) 1
Crimes 820 (Mad).
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
City Automobiles And Anr. vs J.K. Industries Limited And Anr. on 13 October, 2001
The learned
counsel placed reliance on the expression of the A.P.High Court
in City Automobiles v. J.K.Industries Limited , where it was
held for thirty cheques complaints filed when impugned as not
sustainable but for single complaint or independent complaints,
same is held sustainable for no legal bar referring to the
ingredients required to be satisfied under Section 138 of the Act
and the expression therein thus confined to that only and is for
nothing beyond, as to the expression of legally enforceable debt
or other liability within the explanation of Section 138 of the
Act.
Kershi Pirozsha Bhagvagar vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 21 June, 2007
18. The other decision placed reliance is of Kershi Pirozsha
Bhagvagar v. State of Gujarat , there the issue arisen for
consideration is for dishonour of every cheque it will give rise to
distinct offence for being triable and punishable under Section
138 of the Act by considering the scope of Section 138 of the Act.
In fact, the scope of explanation (2) of Section 138 of the Act of
existence or not of a legally enforceable debt or other liability
did not arise for consideration therein specifically.
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
19. The other submission by the learned counsel is these are
the disputed questions to be agitated before trial Court to decide
as to whether there is a legally enforceable debt or other
liability or not, for which once cheque is rooted from the account
of the accused, admittedly issued when not in dispute and from
presumptions under Sections 139 and 118 of the Act apply, the
matter has to be left to be decided by the trial Court and not a
fit case to quash the proceedings for allowing the accused to
discharge the burden before the trial Court. For that placed
reliance upon the Apex Courts three judges Bench expression,
on burden of accused under reverse onus clause in Rangappa v.
Mohan . Here, as discussed supra, when the facts are clear and
not in complication and when the clear facts on hand no way
complicates to the conclusion that there is no legally enforceable
debt or other liability, within explanation of 138 of the Act, the
contention cannot be accepted to leave it to the wisdom of the
trial Court, when any continuation of the proceedings when not
sustainable no way sub-serves the ends of justice and it is not the
spirit of law to put the accused unnecessary ordeal to face trial
with no purpose, apart from that tantamounts to abuse of
purpose for which the Courts power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
not meant and there is nothing to abdicate the responsibility of
this Court in this matter from what is discussed and concluded
supra.