Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.29 seconds)Section 9 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Kadarkarai Reddiar vs Arumugam Nadar on 10 January, 1992
12. The other decision is Kadarharai Reddiar v. Arumugam Nadar, AIR 1992 Mad 346, wherein it has been held that a payee who takes an incomplete stamped instrument and completes it, cannot be said to be a "holder in due course" of that document because the transfer and negotiation in such a case to the payee is not of a negotiable instrument but is only of an inchoate instrument which is not a negotiable instrument and, therefore, he is not the "holder in due course" of that document and on that basis the amount cannot be recovered. I may humbly quote that this decision is not on the point.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Daulat Ram vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 1962
In Daulat Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1206, the apex court held while dealing with prosecution under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code that prosecution must be on a complaint in writing by the complainant. This principle is not attracted for the present purpose, inasmuch as the manager has signed the complaint petition. The question that falls for consideration is whether it is tenable at his instance.
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
If the petitioners would have been able to cover their case under any one of the seven illustrations as indicated by the apex court in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, then there would have been a possibility of quashing the proceeding. I am afraid, the petitioners have not been able to lay the foundation-stone for any of the setus of the aforesaid sapta setu. No foundation stone having been laid, the question of building the bridge does not arise. The setu remains unconstructed.
Section 8 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Braja Kishore Dikshit vs Purna Chandra Panda on 9 November, 1956
In Braja Kishore Dikshit v. Puma Chandra Panda, AIR 1957 Orissa 153, after referring to Section 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, this court
held that to become a holder in due course three conditions are to be satisfied, such as :
Gadadhar Samantaray vs Damo Behera And Anr. on 30 June, 1966
In Gadadhar Samantary v. Damo Behera, AIR 1966 Orissa 230, this court held that where the endorsement of transfer of a promissory note does not mention the name of the plaintiff in whose favour it is intended to be transferred, he cannot sue on the basis of the promissory note as such because he himself is not the holder in due course as defined under Sections 8 and 9 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. I am afraid the ratio of this decision cannot be pressed into service for the present purpose.
Sri Siba Shankar Sahu vs Utkal Asbestos Ltd. on 24 December, 1993
18. Analysing the aforesaid decision, I am of the considered view that the ratio of the said decision is not that whenever there would be direction to the bank to stop payment there would be no criminal liability under Section 138 of the Act. One comes within the mischief of Section 138 of the Act if he has issued a cheque dishonestly. "Stoppage of payment" on instructions cannot always redeem the situation.