Showing : 121-130 of 264 Results

DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal - Validity - Complainant/petitioner failed to disclose material particulars about alleged loan of Rs.2,45,000/- given to respondents/accused - He categorically stated that he could not state specific amount, month or year of amounts paid to accused persons - There..........
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal - Validity - Complainant's case that cheque issued by accused to repay advance of Rs.10 lacs given to him by complainant got dishonoured - Accused challenged the fact that complainant had advanced Rs.10 lacs to him - Accused was able to bring on record fact that..........
DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 256-- Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Non-appearance of complainant - Acquittal of accused - Challenge to - Vital rights of appellant bank are involved before Trial Court - Held, impugned order dismissing complaint and acquitting accused liable to be set aside - Complaint restored - Cost of..........
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 143, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 326(3)-- Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal - Validity - Successor Magistrate decided the case in summary trial on the basis of part of the substance of evidence recorded by his predecessor - Held, he was not in a position to appreciate the evidence properly and decide the case effectively - This caused..........
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal - Validity - Complainant failed to prove that amount as stated in complaint was advanced to accused and cheque in question was given towards discharge of such liability - Except oral evidence of complainant, he did not produce any evidence to show that he had..........
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139-- Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal - Validity - Complainant alleged that accused gave cheque in question towards discharge of liability of price of grains purchased by him - There was no documentary evidence to show transaction - Complainant did not return cheques taken as security despite payment -..........
DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, 468, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482-- Dishonour of cheque - Cheating - Quashing of complaint - Petitioner/accused has stated that he was in financial difficulty and was unable to repay loan amounts and had no intention to cheat or dishonestly divert loan amount - Held, all these defences can be put forth and considered during trial -..........
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141-- Dishonour of cheque - Complaint on behalf of firm - Manager signed complaint on 20.09.1999 - In list of documents, first document is mentioned as "Power of Attorney in favour of complainant dated 21.09.1999" - Before he was appointed as power of attorney he signed complaint - Held, on date of..........
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal - Propriety - It is neither stated in complaint nor in evidence of complainant/appellant that when accused/respondent received amount and whether it was paid by cash or by cheque or demand draft - Even though a large sum of Rs.4 lakhs is advanced, it is not..........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138-- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque No.754336 mentioned in complaint and also in notice - Cheque No.654336 produced on record - Plea of typographical mistake - A typographical mistake can be made once, but it could not be repeated over and over again - Held, Magistrate was justified in concluding that..........

Showing : 121-130 of 264 Results