Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: negotiable instruments 1881 Page 1 of about 32,782 results (0.022 seconds)

Mar 26 2014 (HC)

Prominent Advertising Services Vs. Koutons Retail India Limited

Court : Delhi

..... in case of any default in payment as mentioned in the mos, the petitioner would be at liberty to proceed and prosecute the pending proceedings under section 138 of the negotiable instruments, 1881 and also proceed for winding up of respondent no.1 .6. thereafter, on 06.03.2012 the parties agreed to revise the schedule of the payment of the dues of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2011 (SC)

Raju @ Sheikha Mohamed Sharif. Vs. State of Maharashtra and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

1. leave granted.2. the appellant stands convicted under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act (hereinafter, the act). he is sentenced to imprisonment for six months and payment of compensation of rs.4,00,000/- with the direction nature of imprisonment not specified by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 20 2001 (HC)

Jetu Jacques Taru Lalvani Vs. Solestrap Industries Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2001(3)ALLMR282; (2001)4BOMLR737; [2002]110CompCas831(Bom); (2001)3CompLJ35(Bom); 2001(3)MhLj389

..... there is absolutely no substance in the defence urged on behalf of the first defendant. the first defendant is liable on the bill of exchange under section 30 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 as the drawer thereunder. the summons for judgment is liable to be made absolute and the plaintiff would be entitled to a decree as prayed for as against the ..... of section 22 of the sick industrial companies (special provisions) act, 1985 since the acceptor who is the second defendant is a sick industrial company.8. section 37 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 provides as follows :'37. maker, drawer and acceptor principals.-the maker of a promissory note or cheque, the drawer of a bill of exchange until acceptance, and the acceptor ..... dishonour has been issued to the first defendant is again not disputed. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first defendant, however, submitted that under section 37 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, the drawer of the bill of exchange is the principal debtor only until acceptance of the bill, after which and upon acceptance, he becomes the surety for the acceptor ..... amounts thereunder upon discounting to the first defendant. the liability of the first defendant as a drawer cannot be disputed by virtue of the provisions of section 30 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881. section 30 of the act postulates that the drawer of a bill of exchange is bound, in case of dishonour by the drawee or acceptor thereof to compensate the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2011 (HC)

Shyam Kumar Vs. State

Court : Delhi

1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. to be referred to the reporter or not?3. whether judgment should be reported in digest? 1. this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 9th november 2010 of learned asj, new delhi upholding the conviction of the appellant under section 411/419/420/467/468/471 ipc.2. the allegations against the petitioner were that the petitioner along with another accused radhey shyam committed theft of a draft of rs.7,000/- which was in the name of gurdeep singh and thereafter by forging documents and by impersonation he opened an account in the name of gurdeep singh and out of rs.7,000/-, rs.6900/- was withdrawn from the account. the signatures of gurdeep singh were forged in the account opening form, on the pay in slip and on all other documents for opening the account and withdrawal of money. the learned trial court after considering the entire evidence found that other accused radhey shaym had no role in the conspiracy and it was accused shyam kumar only, the present petitioner, who was responsible for impersonation, cheating, forging of documents and withdrawal of this money on the basis of forged documents. the learned trial court appreciated the entire evidence by analyzing the testimony of each witness. thereafter the learned first appellate court again reappreciated the evidence and came to the same conclusion that it was present petitioner who was guilty of offence .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2011 (HC)

Gita Kwatra Vs. State and ors.

Court : Delhi

1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. to be referred to the reporter or not?3. whether judgment should be reported in digest? 1. by this petition, the petitioner has assailed an order dated 28th september, 2010 passed by learned additional sessions judge allowing an application under section 5 of limitation act moved by the respondents no.2 and 3 seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the court.2. in this case, respondents no.2 and 3 had assailed an order dated 5th february 2010 passed by special executive magistrate by filing a revision petition. however, the petitioner herein took an objection that a revision petition would not be maintainable as an appeal would lie against the order of special executive magistrate. on this, the respondents withdrew the revision petition with liberty to file an appeal. thereafter, respondents no.2 and 3 herein filed an appeal along with an application under section 5 of limitation act seeking condonation of delay of the period spent by them in revision. this application was allowed by the learned first appellate court by the impugned order. the petitioner (respondent before the first appellate court) has preferred this revision on the ground that the period spent in pursuing revision petition could not be condoned and sufficient grounds had not been given by the respondents as to why the appeal was not filed at first instance. it was submitted that the respondents herein were guilty of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 04 2011 (HC)

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Pawan Kumar and ors.

Court : Delhi

1. whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. to be referred to the reporter or not?3. whether judgment should be reported in digest? 1. by this revision petition the petitioner has assailed order dated 1st june, 2010, whereby learned additional chief metropolitan magistrate (acmm) discharged the accused.2. the order of learned acmm makes interesting reading. the acmm observed as under:"it may not be necessary to call the sanctioning authority to cl in the witness box but it must be proved that there was an application of mind by the authority prior to the grant of sanction.the order of sanction appears to be verbatim reproduction of major portion of complaint. the same does not mention how the sanctioning authority got to know the facts mentioned in 37 page sanction order as to who briefed the sanctioning authority or whether the investigation file was put before him or not. it is not clear how the sanctioning authority came to know about the fact whether any person who was related with the investigation ever apprised the sanctioning authority."i am surprised that acmm could make such observations. a sanctioning authority is not supposed to mention in its order as to who disclosed the facts to it and how it came to know of the facts of the case. a sanctioning authority has to accord sanction for prosecution on the basis of facts placed before it by the department and this much general knowledge and common sense has to be considered available with .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 17 2014 (SC)

Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Anu Mehta and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the ground that there was merely a bald assertion in the complaint filed under section 138 read with section 141 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 ( the ni act ) that the directors were at the time when the offence was committed in charge of and responsible for the conduct and ..... made by a two-judge bench for determination of the following questions: (a) whether for purposes of section 141 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, it is sufficient if the substance of the allegation read as a whole fulfill the requirements of the said section and it ..... high court had dismissed the petition filed praying for quashing of the criminal complaint instituted against the appellant under section 138 of the ni act. the appellant claimed to be a non-executive director of the company which had issued the cheques. the appellant claimed that she ..... destination of the world (subcontinent) pvt. ltd.[9]. . d) finally, it must be noted that vicarious liability is contemplated in the ni act to ensure greater transparency in commercial transactions. this object has to be kept in mind while considering individual cases and hardship arising out of a ..... day-to-day business of the accused-company which bald assertion was not sufficient to maintain the said complaint.3. these appeals arise out of several complaints filed under section 138 read with section 141 of the ni act .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 17 2014 (SC)

Vinita S Rao Vs. M/S Essen Corporate Ser.P.Ltd.and anr

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... the bombay stock exchange and the bangalore stock exchange.4. the appellant filed a complaint for the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 ( the ni act ) against the respondents. gist of the complaint needs to be shortly stated. the appellant and her husband had discussions with respondent 2 ..... to all intents and purposes in connection with the said criminal case to be filed, prosecuted before the criminal court under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act.2. and to appear for and prosecute and defend all actions and proceedings, to sign and verify all plaints, written statements and other ..... would in the meantime ensure that smaller lots are credited to your account. i am replacing the cheques issued to you earlier by the following instruments: a) cheque no.392942 dt. 1.8.2003 rs.850,000.00 b) cheque no.392943 dt. 1.8.2003 rs.972,000. ..... the complainant or his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under section 138 of the ni act. (v) the functions under the general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power ..... . on 03/03/2004 the appellant filed a complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate against the respondents alleging offence punishable under section 138 of the ni act. although, the complaint was signed by the appellant, it was presented before the magistrate by the appellant s husband sudhir gulvady on the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2014 (SC)

M/S Ajeet Seeds Ltd. Vs. K Gopala Krishnaiah

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... at aurangabad in criminal writ petition no.1131 of 2012 whereby the high court has quashed the complaint filed by him under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 ( the ni act ) being scc no.4118 of 2007 in the court of chief judicial magistrate, first class, aurangabad.3. for the purpose of disposal of ..... the service of notice and only when it fails to pay, is it open for the complainant to file a case under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. that being the position and in the complaint itself having not been mentioned that the notice has been served, on the assertions made in ..... 2. the accused who is the appellant, assails the order of the high court refusing to quash the complaint filed under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act. the only ground on which the learned counsel for the appellant prays for quashing of the complaint is that on the assertions made in paragraph ..... the gc act and pointed out how these two presumptions are to be employed while considering the question of service of notice under section 138 of the ni act. the relevant paragraphs read as under: 13. according to section 114 of the act, read with illustration (f) thereunder, when it appears to ..... vaidhyan balan[4]., where this court referred to section 27 of the general clauses act, 1897 ( the gc act ) and observed that since the ni act does not require that notice should only be given by post in a case where the sender has despatched the notice by post with correct address written .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 26 2013 (SC)

M/S. Econ Antri Ltd. Vs. M/S. Rom Industries Ltd. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... of answering the reference. the basic provisions of law involved in this reference are proviso (c) to section 138 and section 142(b) of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 ( the ni act ).4. facts of saketh need to be stated to understand how the above question of law arose. but, before we turn to the facts, ..... had to the context and to the purposes for which the computation has to be made. where there is room for doubt, the enactment or instrument ought to be so construed as to effectuate and not to defeat the intention of parliament or of the parties, as the case may be. expressions ..... damages for personal injuries. the defendant initiated third party proceedings against the respondent insurance company, alleging the company s liability to indemnify him under an instrument called a temporary cover note admittedly issued by the insurance company on 2/12/1959. the insurance company inter alia contended that the policy had expired ..... arose under clause (c) of the proviso to section 138 of the ni act?. the same question was reframed in simpler language as under: whether for calculating the period of one month which is prescribed under section 142(b), ..... case, this court identified the question of law involved in the appeal before it as under: whether the complaint filed under section 138 of the ni act is within or beyond time as it was contended that it was not filed within one month from the date on which the cause of action .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //