Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.32 seconds)Aneeta Hada vs M/S Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt.Ltd on 8 May, 2008
The decision in
Anil Hada (supra) is overruled with the qualifier as stated
in paragraph 51.
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Msr Leathers vs S. Palaniappan And Anr on 26 September, 2012
In MSR Leathers v. S. Palaniappan, this Court
held thus:
N. Harihara Krishnan vs J. Thomas on 30 August, 2017
10. The importance of fulfilling these conditions
has been adverted to in a recent judgment of a two Judge
Bench of this Court in N. Harihara Krishnan v. J. Thomas.
Rangabashyam vs Ramesh on 23 July, 2019
(iii) Rangabashyam Vs. Ramesh reported in 2019 (6) CTC 392
Himanshu vs B. Shivamurthy on 17 January, 2019
6. He also relied upon the judgment in the case of
Himanshu Vs. B.Shivamurthy and another reported in (2019) 3 SCC
797, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:
Charanjit Pal Jindal vs M/S. L.N. Metalics on 24 February, 2015
8. The judgment of the three Judge Bench has
since been followed by a two Judge Bench of this Court
in Charanjit Pal Jindal v. L.N. Metalics. There is merit in
the second submission which has been urged on behalf of
the Appellant as well. The proviso to Section 138 contains
the pre-conditions which must be fulfilled before an offence
under the provision is made out. These conditions are; (i)
presentation of the cheque to the bank within six months
from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of
its validity, whichever is earlier; (ii) a demand being made
in writing by the payee or holder in due course by the
issuance of a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque
within thirty days of the receipt of information from the
bank of the return of the cheques; and (iii) the failure of
the drawer to make payment of the amount of money to the
payee or the holder in due course within fifteen days of the
receipt of the notice.
1