Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.41 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
M/S. Aps Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Shakti International Fashion Linkers & ... on 20 April, 2018
29. The counsel for the accused relied upon the
Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in
(1999) 7 SCC 510, between K. Bhaskaran Vs. Shankaran
Vaidhyan Balan, (2020) 12 SCC 724, between APS Forex
Service Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Shakti International Fashion
Linkers and Ors, (2019) 5 SCC 418, between
Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa.
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
29. The counsel for the accused relied upon the
Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in
(1999) 7 SCC 510, between K. Bhaskaran Vs. Shankaran
Vaidhyan Balan, (2020) 12 SCC 724, between APS Forex
Service Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Shakti International Fashion
Linkers and Ors, (2019) 5 SCC 418, between
Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa.
Sunitha vs Sheela Antony on 20 May, 2020
Further relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported in 2020
SCC Online KER 1750 between Sunitha Vs. Sheela
Antony.
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Veerayya vs G K Madivalar on 30 November, 2011
Further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka reported in 2012 (3) KCCR 2057
between Veerayya Vs G. K. Madivalar, with respect to
20
C.C.No.51598/2021
proving of the financial capacity of the complainant. This
Court has carefully gone through the above said judgments.
The said judgments are related to the proving of the
financial capacity of the complainant. In the present case,
the complainant has produced Ex.P.8 the receipt executed
by the accused in support of the cheque at Ex.P.1. The
accused has merely denied the execution of Ex.P.8 and
nothing more has been done to disbelieve the execution of
Ex.P.8. Further, as already discussed accused/DW.1
himself has admitted that, he has issued Ex.P.1 cheque.
Further, accused has not taken any legal steps against the
complainant for alleged theft of the cheque. PW.2 and 3
have also deposed about the loan issued by the
complainant to the accused. There is nothing on record to
disbelieve the evidence of PW.2 and 3 with respect to the
issuance of the debt. Therefore, this Court has held that,
the complainant has proved that, he lent the loan to the
accused and the accused has failed to rebut the
presumption. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the opinion that,
the above said judgment doesn't come to aid the contention
of the accused.
Ashok Singhal vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 1 February, 2005
30. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has
relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
21
C.C.No.51598/2021
Crl.Appl.No.4171/2024 in between Ashok Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & ANR, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that, the complainant can prove his
financial capacity by examining witnesses and producing
the documents. In the present case the complainant has
examined PW.2 and 3 independent witnesses and produced
Ex.P.8 with regard to the issuance of the loan. Hence, the
above said judgment is amptly applicable to the case of the
complainant.
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
Further relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in AIR 2010 SC 1898 between Rangappa Vs.
Mohan with respect to the rebuttal of presumption.