LawMirror.com

Results of self cheque

Andriod Application iphone Application

Showing : 4541-4550 of 6964 Results

MADRAS HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 142, Evidence Act, 1872, Section 45 -- Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable debt and liability - Presumption as to - Rebuttal thereof - Held, as per S.139 of the Act, it is burden of accused to rebut presumption as S.139 of the Act provides that once cheque contains signature of a particular accused, it has to be presumed..........

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 93, 141 -- Dishonour of cheque - Offence committed by Govt. company - Notice of dishonour issued only to company and not to its Managing Director and General Manager - Held, M.D. and G.M. cannot be prosecuted for want of statutory notice - Complaint quashed...........

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 -- Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of proceedings - Question of loss of cheque book - Held, this is a disputed question of fact which can be looked into by trial Court - It is not desirable on the part of High Court to form any opinion with incomplete evidence before it - Proceedings..........

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Complaint - Filing of - Notice was sent on 15.11.2003 - Complaint was filed after 46 days on 01.01.2004 - Held, period of 45 days is required to be calculated from the date of receipt of notice - Since last date of limitation fell during Christmas holidays, complaint could be presented by petitioner..........

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Given to one partner of firm - Other partner had already expired - It cannot be said that notice suffers from such illegality on the basis of which complaint can be quashed...........

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Cheque signed by petitioner No.1 a partner on behalf of firm - He was a responsible person for business of firm - It cannot be said that for his role it is necessary to plead that he was responsible for day-to-day business of firm...........

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138 -- Dishonour of cheque - Lost cheque - Plea that cheque was lost and bank was also informed about `stop payment' - Such pleas to be decided by trial Court after recording evidence...........

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 141 -- Dishonour of cheque - Company - No averment in complaint that accused No.4 or accused No.5 ever signed any cheque - No averment in complaint that they are directors of company on behalf of whom cheques were issued - Complaint qua accused Nos.4 & 5 quashed...........

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139 -- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Existence of debt is not the subject matter of presumption u/s 139 of the Act - The drawee of the cheque has to prove the existence of debt or liability - It is only upon such proof of existence of debt that presumption u/s 139 of the Act to the effect that cheque has been issued for..........

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Year of decision: 2010
Details

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Section 138, 139 -- Dishonour of cheque - Presumption - Cheque issued against loan - Date of loan on which it was advanced not stated - Loan advanced in January but cheque bears date of March - It is clear that no consideration has passed under the cheque in March as even according to complainant loan was advanced in January - Held,..........

Showing : 4541-4550 of 6964 Results