Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.80 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
In case entitled as "Rangappa vs Sri Mohan" [(2010), 11, Supreme
Court Cases 441] where the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, held that the bare
denial of the passing of the consideration apparently does not appear to be any
defence.
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Sachin Sangal vs Pieco Call Tech. Pvt. Ltd. on 28 July, 2010
In the judgment entitled "Pradeep Aggarwal & Ors vs Y. K. Goel",
Page 11 of 19
Ranbir Singh Vs. Ranu Bala Giri & others
Cr. M. C. 66/2009 (Hon'ble High Court of Delhi), where it was held that complaints
u/s 138 NI Act is a summary trial and accused should first disclose his defence and
merely saying "He is innocent" or "He plead not guilty" will not be sufficient and
onus is on the accused to show that no offence could have been deemed to be
committed by him for some specific reasons and defences.
Musaraf Hossain Khan vs Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd. & Ors on 24 February, 2006
In the judgment "Mosaraf Hossain Khan vs Bhagheeraha Engg.
Ltd." AIR 2006 S. C. 128(2006), it was held that the object of the provision of
section 138 NI Act is that for proper and smooth functioning of business transaction
in particular, use of cheques as negotiable instruments would primarily depend upon
the integrity and honesty of the parties. It was noticed that cheques used to be
issued as a device inter alia for defrauding the creditors and stalling the payments.
Dishonour of a cheque by the bank causes incalculable loss, injury and
inconvenience to the payee and the entire credibility of the business transactions
within and outside the country suffers a serious setback.
K.N. Beena vs Muniyappan And Another on 18 October, 2001
In the judgment "K.N. Beena Vs. Muniyappan, AIR 2001 SC 2895,
where it was held that mere denial / averments in reply by the accused are not
sufficient to shift the burden of proof onto the complainant. Accused has to prove in
trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability, which in the
present case accused has not done.
1