Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.60 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Hiten P. Dalal vs.
Bratindranath Banerjee (AIR 2001 SC 3897), observed as follows:
Section 8 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 73 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
30. Further as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v
Mohan , 20110 11 SCC 441, wherein it was observed that, "In the
light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent-
claimant that the presumption mandated by section 139 of the Act
does indeed include the existence of the legally enforceable debt or
liability.
Darbar Exports And Ors. vs Bank Of India And Ors. on 13 March, 2003
In M/s Darbar Exports and Ors. Vs Bank of India, 2003
(2), SCC (NI) 132 (Delhi), the court held that, "a presumption of
CC no.26181/2019
Hira Lal Yadav vs Ram Rup Abhinav Digitally signed by
Abhinav Ahlawat
11/17
Date: 2023.06.06
Ahlawat 04:52:47 +0530
service of notice is to be drawn where the notice is sent through
registered post as well as UPC on correct address.
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
Also, in the case of K. Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan
[1999(4) RCR (Criminal) 309], it has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as under: