Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.30 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 281 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
V.S.Yadav vs Reena on 21 September, 2010
11.27 That a bare denial by the Accused in his examination
under Sec313 Cr.P.C read with Sec281 Cr.P.C would
not assume the character of defence evidence as held in
V.S Yadav v. Reena14. Hence, the Accused has not been
able to rebut the presumption of service of legal demand
14 CRL. A. No. 1136 Of 2010
Page no. 46 of 48 Digitally
signed by
POOJA
POOJA YADAV
YADAV Date:
Kusum Ingots And Alloys Ltd vs Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. And Ors on 23 February, 2000
(c) that the cheque has been returned by the drawee
bank unpaid, either for the reason that the amount of
money standing to the credit of that account is
insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the
1 *Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Pennar Peterson Securities Ltd. AIR
2000 SC 954, Delivered by Honorable Division Bench of Justice K.T.Thomas
& Justice D.P.Mohapatra, Supreme Court of India on 30032011.*modified
in consonance with the amendments brought subsequent to the judgement
dated 23.02.2000 in the NI Act.