Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
S/O.Late P.Narasimha Pai vs Apologized For His Mis-Deed And Pleaded ... on 30 October, 2015 cites

Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008

9. As per the decision reported in ILR 2008 Kar. Pg. 4629 between Shivamurthy Vs.Amruthraj, and in 7 C.C.No.4272/2005 another decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in AIR 2008 SC 1325 between Krishna Janardharn Bhat Vs. Dattareya G. Hegde, in order to attract Sec.138 of N.I Act, the complainant has to satisfy 3 essential ingredients like, 1) there is legally enforceable debt, 2) that the cheque was drawn from the account of the Bank of the accused for discharge of whole or part of any debt or other liability which pre-supposes to be legally enforceable debt, 3) cheque so issued returned unpaid due to Insufficient of funds.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 3978 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

In view of the decision reported in 2010 SC 1898 between Rangappa Vs. Mohan, once the execution of Negotiable Instruments Act is either proved or admitted, then the court shall draw a presumption U/s.139 of N.I Act, in favour of the complainant to that effect that the said Negotiable Instrument i.e, the disputed cheque has been drawn for valid consideration and it is towards legally recoverable debt and it is drawn for valuable consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 Next