Showing : 131-140 of 410 Results

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 27, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114(f)-- Dishonour of cheque - Service of demand notice - Presumption as to - Held, once it is established that notice was sent under registered post with acknowledgment due, prepaid and correctly address, requirement of S.138 of the N.I. Act shall be deemed to have been complied with - Presumption is..........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2012
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138,139, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114-- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Rebuttal - Cheque issued against loan which was entered in books of account and counter-signed by accused - Books of account not produced - Books of account are material and relevant evidence - Held, withholding of material and relevant evidence amounts to..........
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114-- Public document - Presumption as to correctness - Rebuttable - Defendants have not disputed the grant in favour of "M" - However, it was their specific stand that said grant in favour "M" was cancelled subsequently - To substantiate the same, defendants produced Ex.D1, which is the certified..........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118,87, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114-- Pronote - Expert opinion that name of plaintiff on the promissory note and receipt were written later than the other writing on the pronote and in different ink - Expert to counter his opinion not examined - Held, plea set up by defendant that he never executed promissory note in favour of..........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 118, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114-- Promissory note - Consideration - One of the two marginal witnesses did not sign which proves that either consideration was not paid in his presence and he refused to sign or he was not present at the time of execution of pronote - Other marginal witness admitted in cross examination that money..........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 91, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 340-- Defence witnesses - After thorough scrutiny defence witnesses found to be truthful witnesses - On the other hand contradictions occurred in the prosecution witnesses - Held, more reliance is to be placed upon the evidence produced in the defence in preference to the evidence produced by the..........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 91, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 340-- Defence witnesses - Appreciation of evidence - Witnesses examined by accused in defence command the same respect as the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the same rule of evidence regarding scrutiny applies to both the set of witnesses...........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 91, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 340-- Summons for production of documents - SP Vigilance conducting investigation - Summons for production of documents issued by ASI - It is SP Vigilance who is competent to issue summons for production of documents - If he had authorized ASI complainant to issue summons on his behalf, then he could..........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 91, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 340-- Presence of witness at the time of raid - Name of every person who enters the office of Vigilance Bureau is required to be recorded in the DDR - No such entry made regarding one Subhash Chander Gupta, SDO - Explanation offered that entry regarding gazetted officer is not required to be made - No..........
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2011
Details
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 91, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 114, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 12, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 340-- False case - Enquiry - False case registered against accused - Accused acquitted - Special Judge directed to conduct an enquiry u/s 340 Cr.P.C. and a complaint be filed against the witnesses for making a false case against the accused...........

Showing : 131-140 of 410 Results