Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SHRI MANISH KUMAR SINGHAL

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,UMA SHANKER VYAS

…2025:HHC:19713 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.141 of 2024 Reserved on: 02.06.2025 Date of Decision: 25.06.2025 Om Prakash ...Petitioner Versus Bhupinder ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. B.R. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Lahota, Advocate. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present revision is directed against the judgment dated 05.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohru, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which, the judgment of…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) KOLKATA vs. M/S ITD-ITD CEM JV (CONSORTIUM OF ITD-ITD CEMENTATION)

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…pecially to reconstruct interpretation. When a cheque is issue by a person being the drawer, he is principally liable for dishonor of cheque under Section 138 of the N.I Act. 13. Mr. Ganguly, also relies on Kishan Rao vs. Shankargouda reported in (2018) 8 SCC 165 wherein the scope for drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act is discussed. It is held by the Hon’ble 10 Supreme Court that Section 139 of the N.I Act provides that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharg…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED

Accordingly, the Appeal fails and is hereby dismissed

Bench: AKIL KURESHI,REKHA BORANA

…ation, therefore, in such circumstances, the appellate Court has wrongly created doubt with regard to the existence of debt or liability and for 4 such proposition, he placed reliance on the matter of Kishan Rao vs. Shankar Gouda reported in (2018) 8 SCC 165 and lastly submits that considering the aforesaid backdrop, the Appeal may be allowed. 6. On the flip side, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/accused submits that in order to succeed a charge under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Appellant/Complainant ought to prove that he has sent a legal notice to him making a demand for payment of cheque amo…

M/S SURETEX PROPHYLACTICS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

Appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

…the cheque has been presented after the death of the drawer, Nagaraj. His daughter has got herself examined as D.W.1. Plaintiff has not placed any material to support the transaction. 5 (2018) 8 SCC 165 R.F.A No.32/2017 17 (iii) Bir Singh Vs. Mukesh Kumar6, wherein, it is held that even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over would attract presumption under Sectio…