Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Mukesh Kumar vs Bir Singh on 21 November, 2017

M/S Aircom Solutions Pvt Ltd vs B N Viajayakumar @ N Vijayakumar on 4 December, 2019

In passing the impugned judgment and order dated 21-11-2017 [Mukesh Kumar v. Bir Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352], the High Court misconstrued Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge,
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sri R Rajvi vs Sri R Venkatesh on 28 November, 2023

In passing the impugned judgment and order dated 21-11-2017 [Mukesh Kumar v. Bir Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352], the High Court misconstrued Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K V Chalam vs Sri Sathyanarayana Mahesh on 28 March, 2024

In passing the impugned judgment and order dated 21-11-2017 [Mukesh Kumar v. Bir Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352], the High Court misconstrued Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque.
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B Manjunatha vs Sri Sathyanarayana Mahesh on 28 March, 2024

In passing the impugned judgment and order dated 21-11-2017 [Mukesh Kumar v. Bir Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352], the High Court misconstrued Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge 3 (2019) 4 SCC 197
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Azaz Sheikh vs Arun on 22 April, 2025

In passing the impugned judgment and order dated 21-11-2017 [Mukesh Kumar v. Bir Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352], the High Court misconstrued Section 139 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ANIL CHOUDHARY Signing time: 4/23/2025 10:38:09 AM 13 CRR-681-2022 Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - S Dwivedi - Full Document

Smt Shashikala Aithal vs Sri D J Partha Sarathy on 29 July, 2025

In passing the impugned judgment and order dated 21-11-2017 [Mukesh Kumar v. Bir Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352] , the High Court misconstrued Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Dhanalakshmi vs Sri Ramesh on 17 September, 2019

In passing the impugned judgment and order dated 21-11-2017 [Mukesh Kumar v. Bir Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352] , the High Court misconstrued Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri. N. Vasudevamurthy vs Smt. Anusuya on 23 September, 2019

In passing the impugned judgment and order dated 21-11-2017 [Mukesh Kumar v. Bir Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352] , the High Court misconstrued Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next