Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.67 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
A.C. Narayanan vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 13 September, 2013
In the Judgment of the case titled as A.C.
Narayanan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. 2013 (11) Scale 360, it
was so observed that filing of complaint petition under S. 138 of N.I.
Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and complaint is
maintainable. Thus, the said contention of the accused is devoid of any
merits.
Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 11 September, 2002
23. The decisions in Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai vs State of Gujarat - (2002) 8n
SCC 165; Jumni vs State of Haryana and Prem Nath & Anr. Vs State of
Haryana - 2014 CRLJ 1936 (SC); Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal vs Rashmi
Aggarwal - III (2014) DMC 250 (All.); A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak - AIR
1984 SC 718 relied upon by the counsel for the accused in this regard
are also not applicable in the facts of this case and thus cannot be
applied like a Euclid's theorem.
Jumni & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 12 March, 2014
23. The decisions in Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai vs State of Gujarat - (2002) 8n
SCC 165; Jumni vs State of Haryana and Prem Nath & Anr. Vs State of
Haryana - 2014 CRLJ 1936 (SC); Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal vs Rashmi
Aggarwal - III (2014) DMC 250 (All.); A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak - AIR
1984 SC 718 relied upon by the counsel for the accused in this regard
are also not applicable in the facts of this case and thus cannot be
applied like a Euclid's theorem.
A. R. Antulay vs Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak And Another on 16 February, 1984
23. The decisions in Jayantibhai Bhenkarbhai vs State of Gujarat - (2002) 8n
SCC 165; Jumni vs State of Haryana and Prem Nath & Anr. Vs State of
Haryana - 2014 CRLJ 1936 (SC); Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal vs Rashmi
Aggarwal - III (2014) DMC 250 (All.); A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak - AIR
1984 SC 718 relied upon by the counsel for the accused in this regard
are also not applicable in the facts of this case and thus cannot be
applied like a Euclid's theorem.