LawMirror.com

Results of 138 of n i act notice

Andriod Application iphone Application

Showing : 421-430 of 1062 Results

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Cheque drawn towards part satisfaction of pronote - Demand of amount due under the pronote and not demand of cheque amount - If there is absence of demand for the amount covered by the bounced cheque and if it is conspicuously absent in the notice, it is to be treated as imperfect notice -..........

MADRAS HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 -- Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of proceedings - Complainant filed private complaint u/s.200 Cr.P.C. for offences u/s.120(B) & 420 IPC r/w S.138 of N.I. Act against husband of petitioner as A1 and petitioner as A2 - Statutory notice was issued for offence u/s.138 of N.I. Act -..........

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Stay of proceedings - Submission that since informant has failed to mention in complaint, the date on which notice allegedly sent by him to revisionist, demanding payment of amount payable under cheque in question - Held, it is directed that till next date of listing, further proceeding of complaint..........

MADRAS HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Chairman-cum-Managing Director of a company obtained hand loan and issued cheque - Notice demanding payment sent to accused addressing him as Chairman-cum-Managing Director - No illegality...........

MADRAS HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Cognizance of offence u/s 138 of the Act can be taken on compliance of the conditions viz. (a) drawing of cheque; (b) presentation of the cheque to bank; (c) returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank; (d) giving notice in writing to the drawer of cheque demanding payment of cheque amount; (e)..........

MADRAS HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Territorial jurisdiction - Held, place where cheque has been drawn and place, where cheque returned unpaid by drawee bank and place where statutory notice demanding payment of cheque was served on drawer, are the places where Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate complaint for..........

GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2011
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal - Appeal against - Trial Court after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, observed that appellant and respondent No.1-accused knew each other - It is also observed that complainant failed to produce on record cheque return memo or notice - Even original cheque was also not..........

DELHI HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 313 -- Dishonor of cheque - Accused did not take any defence at time of accepting notice - Cheque was issued of a closed account - Accused did not lead any defence evidence - Defence taken in statement u/s 281 or S.313 Cr.P.C. cannot be given a status of evidence - Any statement u/ss 281..........

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Conviction - Validity - In response to reply to notice issued by respondent No.2, petitioner never agitated the question that cheque in question did not bear signature of petitioner - This fact was agitated for first time during pendency of appeal - Moreover, petitioner admitted the fact of earlier..........

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Statutory notice was sent to correct address of accused - Accused was not available at the time of delivery of registered post - Postman had visited house of respondent on 07.06.2001, 08.06.2001, 09.06.2004, 11.06.2001 and 12.06.2001, on which day he had left intimation - Held, finding of..........

Showing : 421-430 of 1062 Results