Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
Lallan Shah vs Bajrang Goyal on 5 May, 2015 cites

P.Purushothaman Nair vs K.Sreekantan Nair on 1 March, 2010

6. Reliance of the learned counsel for defendant on Purushothaman Nair P. vs. Sreekantan Nair, 2013 (4)Ker.LJ256/ MANU/KE/0784/2013 is misplaced. That was a case in which the court in the facts of the said case held that the plaintiff had no authority to fill up the signed blank cheque . Further in any case, in view of the two judgments of this High Court on the above aspect of a blank cheque, the same would be binding on this court.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - M N Krishnan - Full Document

M/S. Mojj Engineering Systems Ltd. & ... vs M/S A.B. Sugars Ltd. on 29 September, 2008

In my opinion the above contention of the defendant has no merits. When a person in the course of business gives a blank cheque, he knows the repercussion. He gives it for some consideration, benefit, advantage or gain. It would normally imply a authority to fill up the cheque to the receiver of the blank cheque. He cannot normally turn around to wriggle out of the liability. This court in Mojj Engineering Systems Ltd. & Ors. vs. A.B. Sugars Ltd. 154(2008) DLT 579, while dealing with a case where an undated cheque was presented, held that merely because the cheque was undated it does not mean that it was without consideration. This court held that since an undated cheque cannot be encashed it can only mean that the petitioner has authorized the complainant to enter an appropriate date on it. It was further held that when a blank cheque is signed and handed over, it means the person signing has given implied authority to the subsequent holder to fill it up. Reliance was also placed on Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments CS(OS) 2563/2012 Page 4 of 11 Act, 1881. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as follows :
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 223 - S K Misra - Full Document

T. Nagappa vs Y.R. Muralidhar on 24 April, 2008

The Supreme Court in T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Murlidhar, AIR 2008 SC 2010, while discussing the scope of Section 20 held that by reason of this provision, a right has been created in the holder of the cheque. Prima facie, the holder thereof is authorized to complete the incomplete negotiable instrument. In that view of the matter, all further issues that may be raised by the petitioners regarding the nature and scope of the authority of the respondent to put any particular date on the cheque in question, are all matters for trial."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 569 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1