Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.69 seconds)
Sh Ajay Sharma vs Sh Vijay Kumar Sharma Sole Propretor Of ... on 28 November, 2025 cites

Alex Paul Menon And Ors vs Smt.Vijay Laxmi Sharma And Ors. 11 ... on 6 December, 2019

".......It is correct that payment of Rs.3024/- vide cheque no.929551 dated 01.11.2016 was specifically received towards bill no.336 for Rs.3024/- (Vol. The cheque was credit in my account on 05.11.2016.) It is correct that the payment of Rs.6300/- CS (COMM.) No. 37/20 Ajay Sharma Vs Vijay Kumar Sharma Sole Prop. of M/s. Ajay Tractor Corporation Page No.11 of 17 vide cheque no.929540 of January, 2016 was received by me specifically towards bill no.287 for Rs.63,00/-. It is also correct that payment of Rs.63,00/- vide cheque no.929541 of February, 2016 was received by me specifically towards bill no.288 for Rs.6300/-. (Vol. These cheques were credit in my account on 13.01.2016 and 23.02.20216 respectively.)
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Wilson Jacobs vs Lucid Prints And 2 Ors on 13 December, 2018

33. However, in view of foregoing discussion and also in view the judgment in Wilson Jacobs v. Lucid Print (Supra), referred to in Para 27, wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court clarified that payment against a specified bill must be confined to that bill alone, and that mere continuity of transactions does not by itself amount to a running account and it becomes evident that the essential ingredients of a non-mutual, open and current account CS (COMM.)
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - G S Patel - Full Document
1