Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Anil Kumar Gupta vs . Sunil Kumar on 26 April, 2018 cites

Anil Kumar Agarwal And Ors. vs Sunil Kumar Agarwal And Ors. on 28 January, 2005

iv. That the cheque was returned by the bank unpaid; v. The payee or the holder in due course of the cheque makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within 30 days of the receipt of information by him/her from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and vi. The drawer of such cheque failed to make payment of the said amount of money to the payee or the holder in due course of the CIS No. 13611/2016 Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Sunil Kumar PS Keshav Puram Page 5 of 18 cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Pine Product Industries And Anr. vs R.P. Gupta And Sons And Anr. on 6 December, 2006

21.The complaint itself is also silent as to the dates on which loan was advanced by the complainant to the accused as also as to the quantum of the loan advanced in each such transaction and hence the complaint as filed is bereft of material details in respect of the legally enforceable debt/liability and on this count is liable to be dismissed. (Reliance placed on judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Pine Product Industries And Anr. vs R.P. Gupta And Sons And Anr, II (2007) BC 20).
Delhi High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 102 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Shri Anil Kumar Chandravanshi (Dead) ... vs Sunil Singh Chandrol on 16 January, 2017

25.With the factum of interest being charged remaining doubtful, the very basis of the debt/liability gets shaken as the cheque in question is stated to have been issued towards discharge of part liability of Rs 6 lakhs and if the complainant is unable to establish the existence of the debt/liability of Rs 6 Lakh, then the presumption as to the cheque in question having been issued in discharge thereof stands rebutted. In the present case, it is the claim of the complainant that on an amount of Rs 5.5 Lakh, an interest of 9% per annum as being given by many banks on FDR's was agreed upon for one year. However, it is noted that interest @9% per annum on principal amount of Rs 5.5 Lakh comes out to be Rs CIS No. 13611/2016 Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. Sunil Kumar PS Keshav Puram Page 14 of 18 49,500/- and not Rs 50,000/- and thus the amount due should have been Rs 5,99,500/- and not Rs 6,00,000/-. It is not the case of the complainant that the accused had agreed to pay the amount after rounding off as there is neither any averment to this effect in the complaint nor any acknowledgment or agreement in respect of the same has been placed on record by the complainant. For reasons best known to the complainant he did not lead any further evidence to prove the exact quantum of the loan amount due to be repaid.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1