Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.71 seconds)Southern Sales & Services & Ors vs Sauermilch Design & Handels Gmbh on 3 October, 2008
“17. As held by this Court in Southern Sales &
Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH [Southern
Sales & Services v. Sauermilch Design and Handels GmbH,
6/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.R.C.No.1461 of 2013
(2008) 14 SCC 457], it is a well established principle of law that
the Revisional Court will not interfere even if a wrong order is
passed by a court having jurisdiction, in the absence of a
jurisdictional error. ....
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand & Ors on 27 August, 2004
11.Before adverting to the rival submissions, it may be
necessary to state here that while exercising Revisional jurisdiction in a
case involving concurrent findings of fact arrived at by two Courts
below, the High Court cannot act as a second appellate Court [See State
of Maharashtra Vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh Anand and Others,
etc. (2004) 7 SCC 659].
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar on 6 February, 2019
Very recently, in Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar
[(2019) 4 SCC 197], the Supreme Court has held as under:
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
14.The accused had examined one Kandasami (D.W.2), who is
a cycle rickshaw rider, who had deposed that he would go to the business
premises just for the purpose of loading and unloading the steel sheets
and he was not aware of any loan transactions between the parties. The
accused should have declared this witness hostile. But, strangely that
was not done. Though the accused can discharge the burden under
Section 139 of the NI Act by preponderance of probability as held by the
Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs Sri Mohan [2010 (4) CTC 118], even
that has not been done in this case. Therefore, this Court does not find
any infirmity or illegality in the findings of fact arrived at by the two
Courts below, warranting interference.
1