Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2021
50. To contend that unaccounted cash amount is not legally
enforceable debt or liability within the meaning of explaining to
Section 138 of N.I.Act, the counsel has referred the judgment
reported in 2014 (3) DCR 760. However, in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel
Vs. State of Gujarat & another, the Hon'ble Apex Court has referred
the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court that if the
transaction in question was not reflect in the accounts and in the
income tax returns, that at the best would hold the assessee or
lender liable for action under the Income-tax laws, but the
complainant succeeds in showing lending of the amount, the
existence of legally recoverable debt cannot be denied.
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
45. So far as source of income is concerned, the counsel
referred the judgment reported in 2019 (3) KCCR 2126 (SC) wherein
it is held that 'complainant failed to establish the source of funds
which he is alleged to have utilized for the disbursal of the loan of
Rs.15,00,000/- to the appellant'. And (2015) 1 SCC 99 wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that 'Legally recoverable debt not
proved as complainant could not prove source of income from which
alleged loan was made to accused'. Relying upon the ratio laid down
in the decision with Rangappa Vs. Mohan.