Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.53 seconds)
Nila Matuthaiah vs M. Shankar Reddy on 26 August, 2021 cites

M/S Total Finaelf India Limited vs Smt.Rashmi Parnami on 3 May, 2013

8. POINT No.1 & 2:: The learned counsel for the appellant firstly contends that the trial court has not applied its mind on the material on record. The trial court itself has observed in the judgment at para No.12 that the complainant has not produced any documents for having supplied Chicks/Broilers and no record to show that Chicks worth Rs. 21,50,000/- were supplied but strangely has come to the conclusion that the accused has not discharged burden and not held that accused not stated anything about the cheque and passed impugned order. He has again relied upon the ruling reported in 2014 (1) DCR 27 (M/S TOTAL FINAELF INDIA LTD. VS. RASHMI PARNAMI), wherein it is held that the liability of paying for the purpose of goods is civil in nature.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 34 - S P Garg - Full Document

Binod Kumar Lall vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr. on 11 March, 2008

He has also relied upon the ruling reported in 2005 (2) DCR 675 (M/S NEW TECH PESTICIDES LIMITED VS. M/S PAVANB COMMERCIAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER) (ANDHRA PRADESH) with respect to appreciation of evidence and issuance of cheque in advance against non-enforceable liability and also relied upon the ruling reported in 2009 (1) DCR 422 (BINOD KUMAR LALL VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER), wherein same principles are applied and also relied upon the ruling reported in 2009 (1) DCR 455 (TEJARAM RAMNATH MOURYA VS. RAMASREYT HARIDAS SONI AND ANOTHER) with respect to non- adducing cogent evidence for payment of huge loan and contends that the trail court has totally erred.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019

9. Counsel for appellant/accused has further draws the attention of the court to Ex.P16 and P17 which are alleged 9 Crl.A.No.1175/2015 account and ledger extract and contends that they are not proved and also relied upon the rulings reported in (2010) 11 SUPREME COURT CASES 441 (RANGAPPA VS. SRI MOHAN) AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 230-231 OF 2019 (SUPREME COURT) (BIR SINGH VS. MUKESH KUMAR). He also draws the attention of the court to para No.11 of the judgment with regard to the observation of the trial court on Ex.P16 and P17 saying that they are not conclusive with regard to supply of Chicks and Broilers to the extent of Rs.21,05,000/- and conclusive and legitimate with regard to receipt of Rs. 14 lakhs. Hence, contends that the order of the trial court is not sustainable. He also further draws the attention of the court to Ex.P9 and P10 which are returned stamp postal envelope wherein notice was not served and also Ex.P8 which is courier receipt wherein the signature of the accused / appellant is not found which is admitted by PW 1 and also on the endorsement of cheque at Ex.P1 saying that it is limited to Rs. 50,000/- but amount of Cheque is Rs 7,50,000/-, this crates the doubt of instrument.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 2207 - I Banerjee - Full Document

New Tech Pesticides Ltd., Rep. By Its ... vs Pavan Commercial Corporation, Prop. T. ... on 8 November, 2004

He has also relied upon the ruling reported in 2005 (2) DCR 675 (M/S NEW TECH PESTICIDES LIMITED VS. M/S PAVANB COMMERCIAL CORPORATION AND ANOTHER) (ANDHRA PRADESH) with respect to appreciation of evidence and issuance of cheque in advance against non-enforceable liability and also relied upon the ruling reported in 2009 (1) DCR 422 (BINOD KUMAR LALL VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER), wherein same principles are applied and also relied upon the ruling reported in 2009 (1) DCR 455 (TEJARAM RAMNATH MOURYA VS. RAMASREYT HARIDAS SONI AND ANOTHER) with respect to non- adducing cogent evidence for payment of huge loan and contends that the trail court has totally erred.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1