Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.28 seconds)
M/S.Divita Entp vs Satish Mehra on 28 January, 2025 cites

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

13. Therefore, in the present matter, the onus of proof is now upon the accused to raise a probable defence and to rebut the presumption of the existence of a legally recoverable debt arisen in favour of the complainant (reliance placed on Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441). It is now to be examined as to whether the accused has brought any material on record dislodging the presumption which meets the standard of preponderance of probabilities.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

B. Adhikari vs Ponraj on 4 July, 1995

15. The accused has relied upon the judgment of B. Adhikari vs Ponraj ; C.S Madhusudhan vs. B. Eswaramma ; R.L. Verma & Sons vs P.C Sharma ; Engineering Control Vs. Banday Infratech Pvt. Ltd. In support of his submissions with regard to the non- receipt of the legal notice, thereby defeating the essential ingredients of section 138 N.I. Act. However, apart from blunt denial regarding the non-receipt of the legal notice, no evidence Ct. Case No 50861/2018 Page No. 5 of 9 M/s Divita Ent'p vs Satish Mehra has been furnished. The said plea has not been questioned during the course of the trial. Moreover, accused stated the same address at every stage of trial / proceedings and also filed appearance before the Court on the process being issued on the said address.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 Next