Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.33 seconds)
Smt.L.Y. Manjula vs Ms. Vinutha .N on 9 November, 2021 cites

Uttam Ram vs Devinder Singh Hudan And Another on 17 December, 2018

In another decision of Hon'ble Apex court of India decided in Crl.Appeal No.1545 of 2019 dt.17/10/2019 by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of Uttam Ram Vs. Devinder Singh Hudan and Anr. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "Dishonor of cheque - Statutory presumption under - burden to prove - the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability - it is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the 56 C.C.No. 12555/2016 J drawer - even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused which is towards some payment, would attract presumption U/s. 139 of NI Act - the accused is held guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence U/s.s.138 of NI Act. In view of the principles of law laid down as above, even if it is admitted by the complainant that, she had written her name and date on the cheques in question in such circumstances also in view of the principles of law laid down in the above decision that itself would not invalidates the cheques in question and it can be presumed that, the said cheques have been issued towards discharge of legally recoverable debt, therefore the defence of the accused that, except the signatures on the subject cheques and has not filled up the rest of the contents in it cannot be acceptable one and for the above said reasons the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused is not sustainable in law and are not accepted.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 266 - T S Chauhan - Full Document

C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007

In addition to that, it is also relevant here to refer the decision reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3578 in the case of C.C.Alavi Haji Vs. Palapetty Muhammed and another., wherein the Hon'ble Apex court held that " the drawer of the cheque is permitted to deposit the cheque amount within 15 days from the date of his appearance before the court in pursuance of the service of summons on him and in such situation, his defence of non service of the legal notice cannot be available to him'. Hence, in view of the said 23 C.C.No. 12555/2016 J principles of law, even for sake of discussion, though there is no cogent and reliable documentary proof to substantiate the claim of the complainant with regard to address of the Accused to show there is due service of the legal notice on the Accused, in view of settled position of law by virtue of the above said decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, the Accused is not entitled to the technical defence of the alleged non service of the legal notice. Therefore, the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the accused that, the notice issued by the complainant was not served on the accused and the complainant has not complied the mandatory requirements of Sec.138(b) of N.I.Act and complaint is not maintainable cannot be acceptable and are not sustainable in law and with due respect to the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused ie 2011 CRI.L.J. 552 are not applicable to the present facts of the case since the facts of this case and facts and circumstances in the decision are not one and the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 4985 - D K Jain - Full Document

N Hasainar vs M Hasainar on 25 July, 2008

21. In addition to the above the perusal of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant and admitted facts by the accused makes it clear that the complainant has proved that the cheques in question were issued by the accused i.e., Ex.C.,2 and C.3 in her favour and signatures found at Ex.C.2(a) and C.3(a) are those of the accused and the complainant presented the said cheques through her banker and same were returned dishonoured for the reason of funds insufficient as per Ex.C.6 and C.7 and thereafter within 30 days from the date of receipt of Ex.C.6 and C.7 the complainant got issued legal notice as per Ex.C.8 to the accused and the said notice was sent through RPAD as per Ex.C.9 and it was received by the accused as per Ex.C.10. But the accused has failed to prove that the cheques in question were given to the complainant towards the security of the chit amount at the time of receiving the said amount by her mother from the complainant and the accused has failed to prove that how the cheques in question entered in to the hands of complainant, in such circumstances, it can be held that, the 36 C.C.No. 12555/2016 J complainant has discharged her initial burden by complying the mandatory requirements as required U/s.138 of N.I. Act and initial presumptions are available in favour of the complainant U/s.118(a) and 139 of the N.I. Act and when the presumptions U/s.118 and 139 of N.I.Act are available to the complainant, even a presumption can be drawn to the extent of existence of legally recoverable debt or liability against the Accused even in the absence of documents produced by the complainant with regard to source of income. In this regard it is relevant here to refer the decisions reported in 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 between 'M/s.Devi Tyres V/s.Navab Jan' and in 2011 ACD 1521 (KAR) between 'Smt. Usha Suresh V/s. Shashidharn', in 2010 SC 1898 between 'Rangappa Vs. Mohan' and 2011 ACD 1412 (KAR) between 'N.Hasainar Vs. M.Hasainar, S/o. Ibrahim'. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above decision i.e., 2001 AIR Karnataka HCR 2154 at para No.6 was pleased to hold that issuance of cheque itself was an adequate proof of existence of debt or liability.
Karnataka High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 243 - K Ramanna - Full Document

Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2021

In another decision of Hon'ble Apex Court of India, reported in CRIMINAL APPEAL 38 C.C.No. 12555/2016 J NO. 508 OF 2018 DT 15­03­2018 between ROHITBHAI JIVANLAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR held that "Negotiable Instruments Act facts like source of funds are not relevant if the Accused has not been able to rebut the presumption. It is further held that " When such a presumption is drawn, the facts relating to the want of documentary evidence in the form of receipts or accounts or want of evidence as regards source of funds were not of relevant consideration while examining if the Accused has been able to rebut the presumption or not".
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 346 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next