Advanced Search Results

L.G.Ravi vs a.Srinivas

Court : Chennai

Mr.J.Chandran Sundar Sashikumar For Respondent : Mr.S.RajendranORDERThe appellant as complainant filed a private complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in C.C.No.1491 of 2017 against the respondent/accused before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Fast Track Court-III, Egmore, Allikulam, Chennai … of M/s.Veratt Property Developers, is the developer of the property in Panneer Nagar, Mogappair in plot Nos.67 & 71 and the property owners are Ms.Nalini and Mr.Ramanakumar. The appellant purchased a flat in the first floor and

S.p. Mani And Mohan Dairy Vs. Dr. Snehalatha Elangovan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

appeal is at the instance of the original complainant of a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, “the NI Act”) and is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Madras

Central Bank of India Vs. Roofit Industries Limited

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Company

Acts : Companies Act, 1956 - Sections 391(6); Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 - Rule 71; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138; Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993

Reported in : 2004(2)ALLMR569; IV(2004)BC363; 2004(3)BomCR712; (2004)1CompLJ473(Bom)

suits), and/or any interim proceedings therein, arbitration proceedings, winding up proceedings, criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and other criminal cases relating to the non-payment of the dues to the various creditors and classes of … moved ex parte without notice either to the secured creditors or to the banker of the company. Rule 71 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 expressly postulates that though an application under Section 391(6) for the stay

Jacob now known as Prajakata Albuquerque Vs. Centaur Hotel Juhu Beach ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Education

5th October, 2001 is quashed and set aside, qua the applicant. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Applicant has challenged order passed by Lower Judge by which Judge has issued process … be mentioned that in Aparna Shah Vs. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 71, the Apex Court has held that under Section 138 of the N.I.Act, it is only the drawer of

Dayawati vs.yogesh Kumar Gosain

Court : Delhi

Subject : Education

III. Statutory provisions 21. Before examining the reference, we may for expediency extract the relevant provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987; the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, … 20% of the cheque amount.” (Emphasis supplied) Crl.Ref.No.1/2016 Page 54 of 89 71. The court has however, observed in this judgment that Section 147 of … JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA JUDGMENT GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE1 The legal permissibility of referring a complaint cases under Section 138 of the NI Act for amicable settlement through mediation; procedure to be followed upon settlement and the

M/S. Pakdhane Cement House Vs. Ramesh S/O. Sheshrao Deshmukh

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Subject : Land Acquisition

that case, the Apex Court was considering the aspect of rebuttal of presumption u/ss.139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was held that presumptions u/s. 118 and 139 comes into existence as soon as the complainant proves … delivered on 24th September, 2000 whereby the respondent/accused Ramesh Sheshrao Deshmukh was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. It was the case

Krishil Capital Holdings Pvt Ltd vs Varun Rajendra

Court : Karnataka

the payment within the abovementioned time, legal action will be taken against you under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and thereupon you will beheld liable for all the costs and consequences arisingthereof.” [Emphasis supplied]17. At the cost … In the present case, the respondent has merely repeated the words used under Section 141 of the - 71 -Negotiable Instruments Act and there is absolutely no allegation as to how and in what manner the petitioner

Prakash Gupta Vs. Securities And Exchange Board Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Land Acquisition

be apt to clarify that in view of the non obstante clause, the compounding of offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is controlled by Section 147 and the scheme contemplated by Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure … be wished away nor can the same be substituted by virtue of Section 147 of the NI Act.” 71 However, before we can apply the decision in JIK Industries (supra), it is important to acknowledge that there

Navneetdas Narayandas Barshikar Vs. Bacchubhai Mulji Tanna and anr.

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

Subject : BankingCriminal

Acts : Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 138, 139, 118(a); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrpC) - Section 313

Case No. 1093/1998, thereby acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Parties are hereinafter referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused. 4. The factual … case of Bapurao s/o. Motiram Mankar Vs. Shri Vyankatesh Housing Agency, Nagpur, and another, reported at 2010(6) Mh.L.J. 71, and (ii) learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of Pioneer Drip Systems Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad

M/S. Pakdhane Cement House Vs. Ramesh S/O. Sheshrao Deshmukh

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Subject : Land Acquisition

that case, the Apex Court was considering the aspect of rebuttal of presumption u/ss.139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was held that presumptions u/s. 118 and 139 comes into existence as soon as the complainant proves … delivered on 24th September, 2000 whereby the respondent/accused Ramesh Sheshrao Deshmukh was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Heard the submissions at the bar. 3. It was the case