Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.18 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946
C. Antony vs K.G. Raghavan Nair on 1 November, 2002
This
all supports the case of the accused that cheques were not handed over to the
complainant as alleged in the complaint. Further, it is the case of the
complainant that money was given in the presence of Mr. G.S. Saluja through
whom, the accused is known to the complainant. The complainant should
have examined this G.S. Saluja to show and prove that money was given to the
accused in his presence. Ld. Counsel for the accused in this regard has relied
upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled as "C. Antony
Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair" reported in IV (2006) BC 295 (SC).
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Anil S/O Baburao Kataria vs Purshottam S/O Prabhakar Kawane on 21 November, 2009
He has also relied
upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case tiled as "Anil
Vs. Purshottam" given in Crl. Appeal No.139/09 that the finance given
without any money lending license is not recoverable u/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008
He has also relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AMIT KUMAR, JSCC/ASCJ/GJ/MM(NW), ROHINI, DELHI
Court in the case titled as "Krishan Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatray G. Hegde"
1