Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (1.08 seconds)
S.Sukumar vs S.K.Kumar on 12 October, 2018 cites

Harshendra Kumar D vs Rebatilata Koley Etc on 8 February, 2011

In Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley and Others (supra), a private complaint has been filed under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, based on the dishonour of the cheques against the Director of the Company, who had resigned prior to the alleged date of offence. The said resignation was accepted by the company and notified to the Registrar of Companies in a prescribed form (Form 32). On the date of alleged offence, the said person was neither Director of the Company nor had anything to do with affairs of the company. Under the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the materials relied upon by the accused are in the nature of public documents and they are beyond suspicion or doubt and they can be looked into by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But, in this case the petitioner has admitted the execution of the compromise agreement and sale agreement. Further he has admitted the issuance of cheques. But, according to him, those documents were obtained by coercion, fraud and cheating. As already pointed out that as per the Illustration (b), attached to Section 102 of the Evidence Act, the burden is upon the person, who pleaded fraud. Therefore, the aforesaid decision will not apply to the facts of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 549 - R M Lodha - Full Document

Vijay vs Laxman & Anr on 7 February, 2013

In Vijay Vs. Laxman and Another (supra), the accused http://www.judis.nic.in 9 was convicted by the trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against which he filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. The said appeal was dismissed, against which a revision was filed before the High Court and the same was allowed and the judgments of the Courts below were set-aside. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by special leave. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering the evidence adduced before the trial Court, has held that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case that the cheque was issued towards discharge of the lawful debt. But, in this case, the accused has filed the present petitions under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaints, which were filed against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. As already pointed out that the petitioner has taken a plea that the documents were obtained by exercising coercion, fraud etc., and the said facts have to be proved by the petitioner by adducing evidence before the trial Court. Therefore, the aforesaid decision cannot be applied at this stage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 680 - G S Misra - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

15. Further, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, once issuance of a cheque and signature there on are admitted, presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque arises. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption, though accused need not adduce his own evidence and can rely upon the material submitted by the complainant. However, mere statement of the accused may not be sufficient to rebut the said presumption. Therefore, this Court is of the view that these petitions are liable to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Hmt Watches Ltd vs M.A. Abida & Anr on 19 March, 2015

In HMT Watches Ltd. versus M.A. Abida, relied upon on behalf of the respondent, this Court dealt with the contention that the proceedings under Section 138 were liable to be quashed as the cheques were given as “security” as per defence of the accused. Negativing the contention, this Court held :- (SCC pp.779-80, paras 10-12) “10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the accused (Respondent 1) challenged the proceedings of criminal complaint cases before the High Court, taking factual defences. Whether the cheques were given as security or not, or whether there was outstanding liability or not is a question of fact which could have been determined only by the trial court after recording evidence of the parties. In our opinion, the High Court should not have expressed its view on the disputed questions of fact in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to come to a conclusion that the offence is not made out. The High Court has erred in law in going into the factual aspects of the matter which were not admitted between the parties. The High Court further erred in observing that Section 138(b) of the NI Act stood uncomplied with, even though Respondent 1 (accused) had admitted that he replied to the notice issued by the complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 233 - P C Pant - Full Document
1   2 Next