Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 2217 (2.14 seconds)
Documents citing K.N. Beena vs Muniyappan And Another on 18 October, 2001

Investors And Realtors Private vs In Favour Of The Complainant Were Not ... on 12 April, 2022

23. On careful examination of all the documents of complainant, it is very clear that the complainant filed this complaint well within time and complied all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881. The presumption Under Section 139 of the NI Act is a presumption of law, it is not a presumption of fact. This presumption has to be raised by the court in all the cases once the factum of dishonor is established. The onus of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The standard of such rebuttable evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Such evidence must be sufficient to prove the case. Therefore a mere explanation is not sufficient to rebut this presumption of law. This court being guided by the preposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court which is relied by the complainant which are as follows;­ Modi Cements Ltd., Vs Kuchilkumar Nandi 1998 (3) SCC 249 K.N.Beena Vs Muniyappan and others 2001 (8) SCC 458 Rangappa Vs Mohan 2010 (11) SCC 441 48 CC NO.3445/2019 SCCH-26 Kalamani Tex and another Vs P.Balasubramaniyan 2021 (5) SCC 283 Triyambak S.Hegde Vs Sripad 2021 SCC online SC 788 Birsingh Vs Mukesh Kumar 2019 (4) SCC 197 Ripudaman Singh Vs Balakrishna 2019 (4) SCC 767 T.R.Srinivasaiah Vs Chikkamagalur District cooperative Central Bank Ltd., (Criminal Revision No.109/2017) Sri.Dhaneshwari Traders Vs Sanjay Jain and another 2019 (16) SCC 83 Jayam company Vs T.Ravichandran 2003 CR.L.J. 2890­High court of Madras It is profitable to refer the decision relied by the complainant and relied Hon'ble Apex court recent decision passed in Criminal Appeal No.123/2021 arising out of special leave petition (criminal) 1876/2018 between M/s Kalamani Tex and another Vs P.Balasubramanian disposal date on 10­02­2021 (three judges bench). In this case, Apex court held that, "once signature on cheque 49 CC NO.3445/2019 SCCH-26 admitted by the accused, court ought to have presume that, cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt."
Bangalore District Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Date Of Reserving The Judgment vs V.Abdul Azeez on 18 February, 2015

Thus in complaints under Section 138, the Court has to presume that the cheque had been issued for a debt or liability. This presumption is rebutable. However the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused. There is no quarrel over the said proposition. But as per the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision, once the issuance of the cheque is admitted, the holder is entitled to invoke presumption under Section 118 and 139 of the Act which is a rebuttable presumption. The said presumption has to be rebutted by the respondent/accused either by way of cross-examining the complainant or by letting in independent witness. Once the respondent proves the discharge, then the burden shifts on the appellant/complainant. However, the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - R Mala - Full Document

N. Mohan vs The State Of Telangana on 14 November, 2022

11. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the lower appellate court had not discussed the evidence is not correct. The lower appellate court on considering the evidence only observed that as far as borrowing of Rs.5,00,000/- was concerned, there was no dispute, so also with regard to signature on the cheque, there was no dispute, the trial court on considering the reply of respondent with regard to the part payments made by him and also considering the fact that the appellant never tried to get back the 7 Dr.GRR, J crlrc_3414_2018 empty pro-notes even though he made the entire payment, by relying on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.N.Beena v. Muniyappan and Others (4 supra) , T.Vasantha Kumar v. Vijayakumari, Rangappa v. Mohan (2 supra), Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee (3 supra) and as the appellant did not adduce any evidence before the trial court with regard to the plea of discharge taken by him, dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial court.
Telangana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Investors And Realtors vs R/A No.E22 on 18 April, 2022

23. On careful examination of all the documents of complainant, it is very clear that the complainant filed this complaint well within time and complied all the ingredients of Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881. The presumption Under Section 139 of the NI Act is a presumption of law, it is not a presumption of fact. This presumption has to be raised by the court in all the cases once the factum of dishonor is established. The onus of proof to rebut this presumption lies on the accused. The standard of such rebuttable evidence depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. Such evidence must be sufficient to prove the case. Therefore a mere explanation is not sufficient to rebut this presumption of law. This court being guided by the preposition of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex court which is relied by the complainant which are as follows;­ Modi Cements Ltd., Vs Kuchilkumar Nandi 1998 (3) SCC 249 K.N.Beena Vs Muniyappan and others 2001 (8) SCC 458 Rangappa Vs Mohan 2010 (11) SCC 441 Kalamani Tex and another Vs P.Balasubramaniyan 2021 (5) SCC 283 Triyambak S.Hegde Vs Sripad 2021 SCC online SC 788 Birsingh Vs Mukesh Kumar 2019 (4) SCC 197 Ripudaman Singh Vs Balakrishna 2019 (4) SCC 767 53 C.C.NO.6109/2018 SCCH-26 T.R.Srinivasaiah Vs Chikkamagalur District cooperative Central Bank Ltd., (Criminal Revision No.109/2017) Sri.Dhaneshwari Traders Vs Sanjay Jain and another 2019 (16) SCC 83 Jayam company Vs T.Ravichandran 2003 CR.L.J. 2890­High court of Madras It is profitable to refer the decision relied by the complainant and relied Hon'ble Apex court recent decision passed in Criminal Appeal No.123/2021 arising out of special leave petition (criminal) 1876/2018 between M/s Kalamani Tex and another Vs P.Balasubramanian disposal date on 10­02­2021 (three judges bench). In this case, Apex court held that, "once signature on cheque admitted by the accused, court ought to have presume that, cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt."
Bangalore District Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shivananda H V vs M/S Solid Steels on 4 February, 2026

52. Though statutory notice is served, the accused did not issue any reply raising the grounds now urged. The Supreme Court in K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan, (2001) 8 SCC 458 and C.C. Alavi Haji, (2007) 6 SCC 555 has held that failure to respond/pay after notice strengthens presumption and prosecution case. Further, accused has not produced any documentary evidence to probabilise his defence. Hence, this Court draws adverse inference against the defence.
Bangalore District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Meyyammai, Proprietrix Of Murugan ... vs India Engineering Corporation, V.D. ... on 11 June, 2007

13. To warrant conviction under Section 138 of the Act, the burden is on the complainant to prove that the impugned cheque drawn by the accused related to discharge the legally enforceable debt or other liability. The accused in this case has proved that on the date of issue of Ex P1 impugned Cheque, the amount due was only Rs. 5,07,230/70ps and that impugned cheque is not for the transactions mentioned in the complaint. Under such circumstances, the said ratio decidenti K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan and Anr. 2001 (4) Crimes 376(SC) will not be applicable to the present facts of the case.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - A C Adityan - Full Document

Vikas Pathak vs Ajay Kumar on 11 March, 2024

67. Complainant's reliance on K. N. Beena v. Muniyappan (AIR 2001 SC 2895) and Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (AIR 2001 SC 3897), CC No. 18392/2017 Vikas Pathak Vs. Ajay Kumar 19/20 DIVYA Digitally signed by DIVYA SINGH Date: 2024.03.11 SINGH 15:54:57 +0530 Bir Singh vs. Mukesh Kumar (supra) will not aid him as presumption has already been raised against the accused and accused has managed to rebut the same by way of preponderance of probabilities.
Delhi District Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next