Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.27 seconds)Hdfc Bank Limited vs Amit Kumar Singh on 22 May, 2009
11. Perusal of the loan agreement and legal demand notice Ex.
CW1/D2 and legal demand notice Ex. CW1/D shows that the address
mentioned on both are the same. The proof of delivery is already a part
of record. Furthermore, the judgment of HDFC Bank (supra) gives a
discretion to the Courts to insist upon proof of delivery of legal notice.
It nowhere gives a direction that for constituting an offence
u/Section138 of the Act, proof of delivery of legal notice is mandatory.
The said case gives direction to the magisterial Courts to see proof of
delivery at the time of summoning the accused and not at the time of
passing of judgment. More over, Section 138 of the Act talks of
issuance of legal notice within 30 days of information of dishonor of
the cheque. The said section nowhere says that legal notice in question
must be received by the accused so as to constitute a complete case
u/Section 138 of the Act. It is judge made law that legal notice issued
in cases u/Section 138 of the Act must be received by the accused.
Section 87 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
V. Raja Kumari vs P. Subbarama Naidu & Anr on 2 November, 2004
Even though not referred to by the parties, the Court relies on the
Supreme Court judgment in case of V. Raja Kumari v. P. Subbarama
Naidu AIR 2005 SC 109, wherein it is held;-
T. Nagappa vs Y.R. Muralidhar on 24 April, 2008
19. Even if we believe that the cheque in question was given blank
signed by the accused, then it is not going to help the cause of
accused. Here it is worthwhile to mention the judgment of T.
Appanage v. Y.R. Bodhidharma, AIR 2008 SC 2010 where the
Supreme Court while discussing the scope of Section 20 of the Act,
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. Accused in this case
has not raised the probable defence that cheque in question was not in
the hand of holder in due course.
Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
Counsel for the complainant has argued that the legal demand notice
was sent on the correct address as given in the loan agreement and has
relied on the judgment of CC Alavi Haji (supra) wherein it has been
held that :