Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Sri. S. Narayana Gowda vs Sri. K. N. Raghavendra on 2 September, 2021 1 C

Instrument Act, empowers the holder in due course to fill up the cheque. On this point, it is relevant to refer the following decisions ... Blank cheque- Issue of - Issuing of cheque duly signed by maker thereof authorizing payee to fill up amount agreed upon will not invalidate cheque

Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, ¶ 34). This, in itself, would not invalidate the cheque (Ibid). The onus would still be on the accused to prove ... Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197, ¶ 34). This, in itself, would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that

fill up the amount and other particulars which itself would not invalidate the cheque. Observation of the Apex Court in this regard is as under ... cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque

cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque ... Filling up of by any person other than drawer does not invalidate cheque Subsequent filling up of unfilled signed cheques not an alteration. Para

writing the year as "2007" invalidates the cheque. Though the question of alleged material alteration was not the question discussed in the said ... cheque, has not stated that, there is any material alteration in the instrument, it cannot be held that the cheque was invalid and ineligible

that such difference in hand-writing ipso-facto would not invalidate the cheque or render its authenticity doubtful. It was held as under ... amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque

that such difference in hand-writing ipso-facto would not invalidate the cheque or render its authenticity doubtful. It was held as under ... amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque

signature in the Memo of Compromise, the respondent had not returned the cheque bearing No.578187 to the petitioner, but presented the same ... cheque has lost its validity and, therefore, prosecution based on an invalid cheque is wholly unsustainable. Therefore, prays for quashment of the complaint

denying the signature on the cheque, it is required to be presumed that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and that the complainant ... that mere filling up of cheque by the payee would not invalidate cheque. This contention was put forward mainly to meet the situation, that