Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (10) TMI 515 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (10) TMI 515 - DELHI HIGH COURT - TMI - Dishonoring of cheques - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that:- Section 139 of the N.I. Act provides for raising of presumption to the effect that the holder of the cheque has received it in discharge of liability. - The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay v. Laxman and Anr. (2013 (5) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has observed that once the cheque has been issued and the signatures thereon has been admitted by the accused, then it i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t is a settled law that while exercising the revisional jurisdiction the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence. Even otherwise, there are concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court as well as by the appellate Court. - In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any irregularity, illegality or impropriety in the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed. Application, if any, is also disposed .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act) was upheld. Vide judgment dated 26.02.2015 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate the petitioner was convicted for offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and vide order on sentence dated 25.03.2015, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay the compensation of ₹ 4 lakhs to the complainant. In default of payment of compensation, the petitioner shall further undergo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

petitioner signed a promissory note for a sum of ₹ 3,45,000/- and promised to return the loan amount till 21.05.2005. To repay the loan amount, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.739923 dated 01.02.2006 for a sum of ₹ 3,45,000/-. When the said cheque was presented for encashment, the same was dishonoured with the remarks funds insufficient . The respondent no.2 sent a legal notice dated 19.06.2006 to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not make the payment. Hence, the comp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er. 4. Arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties were heard. I have gone through the arguments advanced and the material available on record. 5. Argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner was that the respondent no.2 had not proved her case beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner is entitled for benefit of doubt. There were material discrepancies in the testimony of complainant witness. There was no proof that any liability accrued against the petitioner. The petitioner took .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner. The complainant did not remember the date of execution of pronote. It was further argued that the petitioner is behind the bars since 24.08.2015. 6. Per contra, it was argued that the complainant had duly established her case beyond reasonable doubt that loan of ₹ 3,45,000/- was taken by the petitioner from the respondent no.2/complainant and to discharge his liability, he had issued the cheque in question. It was further argued that the cheque was issued towards discharge of legally .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x.CW1/6 & Ex.CW1/7 and reply to the legal notice as Ex.CW1/8. 8. By proving her case by way of leading the oral as well as documentary evidence, the respondent no.2/complainant had duly proved all the essential ingredients of his case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. On the other hand, it is an admitted case of the petitioner himself that the cheque in question bore his signatures. He also admitted the issuance of cheque. 9. The plea of the petitioner is that the cheque in question was not .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version