Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.08 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Sri Murugan Financiers vs P.V. Perumal on 13 July, 2004
The decision of this court in Murugan Financiers v.
P. V. Perumal reported in 2005 Crl L.J. 269 ended in
acquittal on account of non production of books of accounts,
sought for by the accused therein has no relevancy in this
case."
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
A three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.C. Alavi Haji
v. Palapetty Muhammed and Another (2007) 6 SCC 555 has held that:-
V.S.Yadav vs Reena on 21 September, 2010
7. The decisions of the Hon'ble Superior Courts relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for
the complainant are of V.S. Yadav v. Reena, (Decided on 21st September,
2010), I.C.D.S. Ltd v. Beena Shabeer & Anr., (Decided on 12th August,
2002), General Auto Sales v. Vijaylakshmi, (Decided on 4th August, 2004),
Kamruddin Ali v. Citi Financial & Ors., (Decided on 23rd May, 2012). These
decisions are inapplicable to the present case as they primarily emphasize on the
point of a cheque being given as a security cheque and starkly differ in their facts
with the facts of the present case.
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
1. Signature on the cheque in question bearing no. 104876, is admitted by the
accused. Mandatory Presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 NI Act
shape up in favour of the complainant, pursuant thereto. It is settled law that these
presumptions can be rebutted by the accused on a scale of preponderance of
probabilities either by leading his defence evidence or by punching holes in the
story of the complainant. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Shri Mohan,
(2010) 11 SCC 441, observed that: