Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.35 seconds)
Kavyashree vs Parameshwara Murthy M on 20 August, 2025 cites

Triyambak S.Hegde vs Sripad on 23 September, 2021

29. The accused has not disputed that the cheque belongs to his account and it bears his signature, The Honorable Supreme Court of India in "Triyambak S Hegde v Sripad" (2022) 1 SCC 742 under para 14 of its judgment reiterated that "once the cheque was issued and that the signatures are upon the cheque are accepted by the accused, the presumptions undee Sec 118 and 139 of the NI Act arise against the accused. That is, unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the cheques in question were drawn by the accused for a consideration and that the complainant had received the cheque in question in discharge of debt/liability from the accused."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 366 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

M/S Meters And Instruments Private ... vs Kanchan Mehta on 5 October, 2017

42. POINT NO.II:- In view of the reasons assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act. A bare reading of sec.138 of the NI Act indicates that the purport of sec.138 is to prevent and punish the dishonest drawers of cheques who evade their liability. The Hon'ble Apex Court 35 C.C.14618/2023 in its recent decision in M/s. Meters & instrument Pvt Ltd. Vs. Kanchana Mehta reported in (2018)1 SCC-560 held at para 18(ii) that"(ii) The object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found." In view of the reasons assigned in above point, it is ample clear that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 138 of the Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 753 - A K Goel - Full Document
1