Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.45 seconds)
Dhirubhai Rananbhai Bhanderi vs State Of Gujarat on 3 July, 2018 cites

Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd vs Rajvir Industries Ltd. & Ors on 9 January, 2008

In Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd. [(2008) 13 SCC 678], this Court has made the following observations explaining the parameters of jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: (SCC pp. 685-87, paras 17 & 22) "17. The parameters of jurisdiction of the High Court in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is now well settled. Although it is of wide amplitude, a great deal of caution is also required in its exercise. What is required is application of the well- known legal principles involved in the Page 25 of 35 R/CR.A/832/2018 CAV JUDGMENT matter.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 205 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

In Rangappa versus Sri Mohan[9], this Court held that once issuance of a cheque and signature thereon are admitted, presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque arises. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption, though accused need not adduce his own evidence and can rely upon the material submitted by the complainant. However, mere statement of the accused may not be sufficient to rebut the said presumption. A post dated cheque is a well recognized mode of payment[10].
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

M/S Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd And Ors vs M/S Magnum Aviation Pvt Ltd And Anr on 7 April, 2014

4.7 The law on the point is quite clear, as can be noticed from the decision of the Apex Court in 'INDUS AIRWAYS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. MAGNUM AVIATION PRIVATE LIMITED', (2014) 12 SCC 539, it was a case of dishonour of cheque issued towards advance payment. The appellant purchaser placed two purchase orders with the respondent supplier by issuing two separate cheques towards advance payment. After some time, deal between parties got cancelled as goods were not supplied. The respondent supplier tried to supply goods, but it was refused by the appellant purchaser. Therefore, a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was made by the respondent supplier. The trial Court issued summons and it was challenged by the appellant purchaser before the Sessions Court. Issuance of process was quashed by the Sessions Court. However, when the challenge was Page 13 of 35 R/CR.A/832/2018 CAV JUDGMENT taken to the High Court, it set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court and thereby, the matter came-up for consideration before the Apex Court. The Apex Court observed and held that the explanation appended to Section 138 of the NI Act explains the meaning of the expression 'debt or other liability' for the purpose of Section 138 of the NI Act. This expression means a legally enforceable debt or other liability. Section 138 of the NI Act treats dishonoured cheque as an offence, if the cheque has been issued in discharge of any debt or other liability subsisting on the date of drawl of the cheuqe. The relevant observations read thus:
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 384 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Damodar S.Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H on 3 May, 2010

4.4 With this background, at this stage, it would be profitable to take note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions that when there are two views possible, appellate Court is not to interfere, even if, there is a possibility of arriving at a different conclusion with the very set of evidence adduced before the Court. The trial Court after extensive recordance and appreciation of the evidence, chose to acquit opponent No.2 by holding that the appellant did not succeed in proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 5512 - Full Document
1   2 Next