Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.64 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam on 18 March, 2009
In the case of Sethuraman Vs. Rajamanickam, Crl. Appeal
No. 486487 of 2009 dated 18.03.2009, the question
before Hon'ble Supreme Court was whether an order
rejecting an application under Section 91 and Section 311
of Criminal Procedure Code was an interlocutory order.
Mrs. Kalyani Baskar vs Mrs. M. S. Sampoornam on 11 December, 2006
The Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon the
following observation made in a previous decision of the
Court in the case of Kalyani Baskar Vs. M.S. Sampoornam
(2007) 2 SCC 258:
Section 91 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
T. Nagappa vs Y.R. Muralidhar on 24 April, 2008
In the case of T. Nagappa Vs. Y.R. Muralidhar, Appeal
(Crl.) No. 707 of 2008 dated 24.04.2008, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court laid down that every accused person has a
right to fair trial and the right to lead evidence in his
defence. It was further held that even if the defence of the
accused may seem illusory or unjustified, the accused
would still be entitled to lead defence evidence. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order declining the
prayer of the accused for forensic examination of the
cheque.
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Amarnath (Deceased) Thr. His Legal ... vs State Of Haryana Etc. on 28 January, 2015
In this behalf, I am supported by the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Amarnath & Ors. Vs. State of
M/s Shubham Jewellers Vs. Kanwal Nain Kaur Page No. 5 of 14
Haryana & Ors, 1978 SCR (1) 222. In that case, Hon'ble
Supreme Court observed as follows :
1