Search Results for "borrowed funds"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...
Supreme Court Allows Agriculturists' Appeal for Enhanced Compensation; Condones ...

Search Results for "borrowed funds"

390 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 390 result(s)

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Upholds Conviction in Cheque Bounce Case — Accused Failed to Rebut Presumption Under Section 139 of NI Act. The court confirmed that the accused's defence of a blank cheque was not credible and that the complainant had proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

24 Jun 2024

The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by the accused, C. Niranjan Yadav, challenging his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in NI Act Case — Reverses Acquittal for Dishonour of Cheque. Complainant's Loan of Rs.2,50,000 for Education and Family Necessities Supported by Evidence; Presumption Under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Not Rebutted by Accused.

15 Dec 2023

The complainant, Smt H B Bhagyalakshmi, filed a criminal appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal in NI Act Case — Conviction for Dishonour of Cheque When Debt is Less Than Cheque Amount. The court held that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applies to the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the accused must rebut it; mere discrepancy in amount does not vitiate the complaint if the debt is proved.

3 Feb 2021

The appellant, M. Ramesh Kumar, filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against the respondent, Riyaz Ur Rehaman, ...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Negotiable Instruments Act Case Due to Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt. Cheque Issued as Security for Time-Barred Debt Does Not Attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

5 Aug 2016

The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by Smt. Nasreen Pasha (the accused) against the judgment of the JMFC, Gubbi, in CC No.439/2008 da...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Negotiable Instruments Act Case — Reverses High Court Conviction Due to Insufficient Rebuttal of Presumption. The Court held that the accused successfully raised a probable defence by questioning the complainant's financial capacity and the circumstances of the loan, thereby rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

27 Mar 2019

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by the accused against the High Court of Karnataka's judgment convicting him under Section 138 of the Negotiabl...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Cheque Bounce Case Due to Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt. Complainant's Evidence Insufficient to Establish Debt Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

14 Jun 2013

The case involves a criminal revision petition filed by the accused, Chikkachowdappa, against his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instr...

High Court

High Court Allows Appeal of Regional Rural Bank in Income Tax Dispute — Expenditure on Raising Capital Held Allowable Under Section 36(1)(viii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Expenditure incurred for raising capital by a regional rural bank is not capital expenditure but revenue expenditure allowable under Section 36(1)(viii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

28 May 2018

The appellant, M/s Pragathi Krishna Gramin Bank, a regional rural bank, filed appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings in Movie Investment Dispute Under Section 420 IPC Due to Lack of Dishonest Intention at Inception. Investment in movie production with profit-sharing agreement constitutes civil dispute, not cheating, as movie-making involves inherent risk and promise was fulfilled, with dishonoured cheques issued for existing obligation, not inducement.

19 Mar 2026

The appeal arose from a criminal case where the appellant, a movie producer, borrowed funds from the second respondent on the promise of sharing profi...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case Due to Failure to Prove Debt Liability. Complainant Bank Failed to Establish Legally Enforceable Debt or Liability Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

17 Dec 2020

The appellant, Bidar Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, Girish Kulkarni, by the trial cour...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Hears Civil Appeals Against SEBI's Attachment Orders – Appellants Challenge Levy of Retrospective Interest on Penalty Without Express Provision in Adjudication Order. The core question was whether the Recovery Officer could demand interest at 12% p.a. from the date of original adjudication orders under Section 28A SEBI Act read with Section 220 Income Tax Act in absence of a prior direction for interest, and whether Explanation 4 inserted in 2019 applies retrospectively to pre-existing orders.

26 Jul 2026

The appeals arose from the dismissal by the Securities Appellate Tribunal of challenges to attachment notices issued by the Securities and Exchange Bo...

4 5 6 7 8

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)