Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.21 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing ... vs Amin Chand Payrelal on 18 February, 1999
17. Further the Apex Court in the matter of Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal14, had considered Section 118(a) of the Act and held that once execution of the promissory note is admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a) would arise that it is supported by a consideration. Such a presumption is rebuttable and defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. In paragraph No.12 following has been laid down:-
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
In its recent judgment, the Apex Court in the matter of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa15 specifically in paragraph nos. 23 and 24 has noticed as follows:-
Kishan Rao vs Shankargouda on 2 July, 2018
"23. We may now notice the judgement relied on by the learned counsel for the complainant i.e. judgment of this Court in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda16. This Court in the above case has examined Section 139 of the Act. In the above case, the only defence which was taken by the accused was that cheque was stolen by the appellant. The said defence was rejected by the trial court. In paras 21 to 23, the following was laid down: (SCC pp. 173-74)
Rakesh Meena vs Central University Of Haryana on 30 August, 2019
9. The learned counsel had further contended that financial irregularities by office bearers is of Mahamedha Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.3 as well as regarding misappropriation of money, a first information report was lodged, which led to cancellation of licence of the aforesaid Bank and hence the accounts there were blocked in the year 2017 itself. Thus, the accounts from which the cheque was issued was not in operation and was not being maintained by the applicant, thus, the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act could not be lodged in such a case where a cheque for payment of liability or debt is being issued from the account which is not being maintained at the relevant point of time. Relying on a judgement of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rajesh Meena v. State of Haryana and others4, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the date when the cheque was dishonored, the account holder was not maintaining the said account, therefore, in the absence of this material condition it cannot be said that the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is made out as is one of the necessary ingredients required for lodging of complaint under the relevant Act.