Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.33 seconds)
Babu @ Shahabudeen vs S.M. Rizwannul Hug on 29 November, 2012 cites

Rev.Mother Marykutty vs Reni C Kottaram & Anr on 12 October, 2012

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Rev. Mother Marykutty vs. Reni C. Kottaram and another) 2012 (10) Scale 149, would contend that there is no legal or enforceable liability on the part of the petitioner to pay the cheque amount. As discussed above, the cheque was issued by the petitioner and when the signature in the cheque is found to be that of the petitioner, the presumption is that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt and therefore, the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 111 - Full Document

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

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was a stranger to the proceedings before the courts below and he had no transaction with the respondent in the matter of borrowing money or he had ever issued the cheque in favour of the respondent. The petitioner used to sign only in English but the cheque in question was signed in Tamil and therefore it is clear that the cheque was not signed by the petitioner. Further, there is no need or necessity for the petitioner to borrow money from the respondent inasmuch as the petitioner is having sufficient income from his agricultural lands. The respondent and his son were staying with the petitioner during the relevant period to secure admission for the son of the respondent and during such stay, they have stolen the cheque of the petitioner and misused it. Further, the respondent has no means at all to advance such a huge sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, as per the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde) 2008 4 SCC 54 whenever a sum of Rs.20,000/- and above are paid as loan, it should be paid only by means of cheque. In the present case, the respondent has paid the sum of Rs.1,40,000/- allegedly by cash and therefore, the alleged lending of the amount by the respondent is contrary to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 3978 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1