Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.41 seconds)
Santhosh M vs C G K Prasad (Ganesh Prasad ) on 11 March, 2025 cites

Sampelly Satanarayana Rao vs M/S Indian Renewable Energy ... on 8 May, 2014

20. At this juncture it is necessary to go through a ruling rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2016) 10 SCC 458 in the case of Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited wherein it is held that a post-dated cheque described as 'security' in the loan agreement is dishonoured, the same would be punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Since the accused has taken a contention that he had issued the cheque as security, it indicates that there was existing liability on the part of the accused and accused issued the cheque in respect of the same. Under these circumstances the above ruling is squarely applicable to the facts of this case.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 25 - M Gupta - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

22. At this juncture it is worthwhile to go through a judgment reported in AIR (2010) 11 Supreme Court Cases 441, 1898, in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan, wherein by relying upon the ruling of Hithen P Dalal Vs. Bratheendranath Banerji, it is reiterated that once the accused admits his signature the legal presumption will have to be raised in favour of the complainant. The accused can prove non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. In the case on hand the accused has failed to raise probable defence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1