Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.20 seconds)
Parimal Maheshbhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 12 February, 2024 cites

M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian on 10 February, 2021

10. Having gone through the documents on record, it appears that the applicant/petitioner has admitted his signature on the cheque. This implies that he has admitted his signature on the cheque and has only raised dispute of writings made on it. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 735 and Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283, the effect of admission regarding the signature on the cheque is explained. Once the signature is admitted, it is required to be presumed that the cheque was issued towards consideration for a legally enforceable debt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 840 - S Kant - Full Document

Rajesh Jain vs Ajay Singh on 9 October, 2023

As per explanation of legal position on how Page 4 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 14 20:40:33 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2774/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024 undefined to rebuts the presumption under Section 139 NI Act and to raise presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly explained in the case of Rajesh Jain v. Ajay Singh reported in (2023) 10 SCC 148.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - A Kumar - Full Document

T. Nagappa vs Y.R. Muralidhar on 24 April, 2008

12. Even no such dispute is raised by the petitioner and learned Trial Court as well as Revisional Court came to the conclusion that with a view to protract the litigation at the fag-end, such defense has been raised by the accused. Learned advocate has relied on the judgments rendered in cases of (i) T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R.Murlidhar, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2010 and (ii) Special Criminal Application No.11178 of 2021. Prior to deal with the aforesaid authorities, it is worth to mention that Criminal Case is required to be decided on its own merit, rather relied on the precedent, wherein, it was the case of the accused that the cheque was obtained by his partner Amratbhai Gopalbhai Patel, who was in the business of lending money. It was the specific case of the accused Page 5 of 6 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 14 20:40:33 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2774/2023 ORDER DATED: 12/02/2024 undefined that cheque was given to his Ex-partner and thus, the cheque was not for any existing debt or liability. In that case, the cheque issued towards the security in the year 2011 and ex-partner had misused the cheque though there was specific defense qua misuse of cheque and there was bonafide and probable defense of the accused. Even in the case of Shashikant Shamaldas Patel (SCR.A No.11178/2021), cheque was fabricated and it was not issued towards any legal debt or liability. Even the accused had also filed a complaint against the complainant under Sections 406, 420, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and thereafter, chapter case also filed against the complainant and other witnesses. Further, as the cheque was misused in collusion with one Amratbhai Patel and the complainant, application came to be allowed. Here in the case on hand, no bonafide and probable defense has been raised.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 569 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Tedhi Singh vs Narayan Dass Mahant on 7 March, 2022

10. Having gone through the documents on record, it appears that the applicant/petitioner has admitted his signature on the cheque. This implies that he has admitted his signature on the cheque and has only raised dispute of writings made on it. Hence, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant, reported in (2022) 6 SCC 735 and Kalamani Tex v. P. Balasubramanian, reported in (2021) 5 SCC 283, the effect of admission regarding the signature on the cheque is explained. Once the signature is admitted, it is required to be presumed that the cheque was issued towards consideration for a legally enforceable debt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 247 - K Joseph - Full Document
1   2 Next