Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)
M/S. Sivam Electrical And Hardware ... vs 1. M/S. Reeliable Mep Projects India 2. ... on 3 May, 2025 cites

All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 December, 1991

5. The sworn statement and the documents marked at Ex.P.1 to P.11(b) of the complainant is being treated as the complainant evidence as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Bank Association Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in 2010 (5) SCC 590. The statement of the accused no.2 & 3 as required U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. were read over and explained to them, they denied the incriminating evidence appeared against them and submitted that, they have the evidence, but however they have neither chosen to adduce their evidence nor chosen to complete the cross-examination of the complainant. Thereby the further cross examination of the complainant is being taken as nil and so also the defence evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 761 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Sri. V. R. Shresti vs Sri. Bhaskar. P on 15 October, 2019

In the decision reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Kar.2117- V.R.Shresti Vs., Bhaskar.P., wherein the Hon'ble High court has opined that, if really the accused had no transaction with the complainant, he would have given reply to the notice and not replying the same would go to establish that, the defence made is false and the court should draw the presumption against the accused for not replying the legal notice. The decision aptly applies to the case in hand. Not replying the notice at the initial stage 11 C.C.No. 18927/2018 would hold no water so far the defence case is concerned and in this background, the case of the complainant has to be accepted by drawing presumption.
Karnataka High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 135 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

In the decision reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283 - Kalamani Tex and Another., Vs. P.Balasubramanian, (2010) 11 SCC 441- Rangappa Vs. Sri.Mohan., wherein it is held that, when once the signature of an accused on the cheque is established, than the reverse onus clauses become operative, also aptly applies to the case in hand. When the complainant has established the accused persons having issued the cheques at Ex.P.3 & P4 towards the discharge of legal liability and their existed a legally enforceable liability, the onus to disprove it, shifts on the accused which is not been proved by placing positive evidence. In this background, having the accused persons not disputed the complainant case by placing positive evidence, I am of the considered view that, the cheques issued by the accused persons at Ex.P.3 & P4 is for the legally enforceable liability 12 C.C.No. 18927/2018 and this fact is being established by the complainant by placing cogent and positive evidence which is not rebutted by the other side.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

M/S Meters And Instruments Private ... vs Kanchan Mehta on 5 October, 2017

13. Point No.2:- For the reasons discussed in the point No.1, the complainant has proved the guilt of the accused punishable U/s.138 of N.I.Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court also dealt in the decision reported in (2018) 1 SCC 560, M/s. Meters and Instrument Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Kanchana Mehta., wherein It is held that "the object of provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged, but is not debarred at the later stage subject to appropriate compensation has may be found acceptable to the parties or the court". By considering the decision, it could be said that, the time when the transaction has taken place and the primary object of the provision being kept in mind, I am of the considered view that rather imposing punitive sentence, if sentence of fine is imposed with a direction to 16 C.C.No. 18927/2018 compensate the complainant for its monetary loss by awarding compensation U/s.396 of BNSS 2023, it would meet the ends of justice. By considering these aspects, I am of the considered view that, it would be just and proper to impose fine of Rs.13,87,188/-. Out of the compensation of Rs.13,87,188/-, an amount of Rs.13,82,188/- shall be awarded to the complainant U/s.396 of BNSS 2023. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 753 - A K Goel - Full Document
1