Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.60 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 147 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 357 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
B.M. Basavaraj vs Srinivas S. Datta on 5 April, 2016
12. Per contra, Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the complainant/appellant placed strong reliance on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in B.M.Basavaraj v. Srinivas S.Datta [CDJ 2016 SC 1007].
Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Arulvelu & Anr vs State Rep By Public Prosecutor & Anr on 7 October, 2009
17. In the teeth of this legal position, the order of acquittal of the accused passed by the first appellate Court suffers from manifest illegality warranting interference. The reasons given for acquittal does not pass muster the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arulvelu and another v. State rep by the Public Prosecutor and another [(2009) 10 SCC 206]. However, the complainant has failed to establish that Kamalam [A3] was in-charge and responsible for the affairs of Sri Maruthi Processors [A1] for fastening vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
V.Ponkasamuthu vs M.Aathimuthu on 23 January, 2009
In Ponkasamuthu (supra) the accused filed Exs.D1 to D11 in order to rebut the presumption that there was no legally enforceable debt and only in those circumstances, a learned Single Judge of this Court refused to upset the order of acquittal.
1