Factual Matrix-5:

That the respondent had mentioned the total amount of Rs 10 lakhs in legal notice whereas the respondent had mentioned the total amount of Rs 17.5 lakhs in affidavit, and thus there were  contradiction between two statements. 

That the respondent accepted in affidavit that he had received the amount of Rs 8.5 lakhs from petitioner .

That the respondent accepted in cross-examination that petitioner had paid the amount of Rs 8.5 lakhs to respondent. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: Elaborate the citation of Union of India (UOI) and Ors Vs. Surendra Pandey, 18.09.2014 ?

Ans:  Union of India (UOI) and Ors Vs. Surendra Pandey, 18.09.2014 . The Respondent on authorised leave started his homeward journey by train. While boarding a bus from Hajipur to join his family in Patna he met with an accident that resulted in a disability, assessed at 20% by the Medical Board concerned. A Court of Inquiry recorded a finding that the accident and the resultant injury suffered by the Respondent were not attributable to military service. The claim for payment of disability pension was declined by the Appellants, according to whom the Respondent was authorised to travel upto Gopalganj-his home station. Any accident involving the Respondent at Hajipur was in no way related to military service or the time requisite for completing the homeward journey which the Respondent was authorised to undertake. The Respondent approached the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the disability was attributable to military service as the Respondent was on annual leave, henc...
Read more

Q: How would section 208, 209 and 210 of IPC be implemented in dishonour of cheque ?

Ans: A and B collude together and A issues the cheque for X Amount, which gets dishonored.  B files the complaint under S.138, and without proving the liability gets the benefit of presumption under S.139, now both A and B enact the drama of compounding under S.147 of NI Act, matter closed, but in principle A has violated IPC S.208 and S.210 and B has violated IPC S.209. So, if rightly B is asked to prove the entitlement to become the holder, before presumption can be granted to him, surely he would fail and lawfully both A and B can be prosecuted under IPC S.208, S.209 and S.210 if required.
Read more