Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22001 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001

Johnson Scaria vs State Of Kerala on 8 August, 2006

12. Hiten P. Dalai v. Bratindranath Banerjee is authority for the proposition that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is a presumption of law and the presumption of law has to be distinguished from an enabling presumption of fact under Section 114 of the Evidence Act. Such presumption of law is to be drawn and the court has no option, but to draw the same in every case where the factual basis for raising the presumption is established. Once that presumption is drawn, the period of life of this presumption of law is also specified in Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The presumption will live, exist and survive thereafter and shall vanish only when "the contrary is proved" by the accused. The contrary has to be proved. This obligation to prove contrary is not the obligation to disprove the prosecution case in its entirety. The presumption is only on the question whether the cheque is issued for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or liability. Until the contrary is proved, this presumption will continue to remain.
Kerala High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 55 - R Basant - 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

) Sh. Rajesh Khurana vs Smt. Munesh Kumari on 24 May, 2019

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 rebuttable. However the burden of proving that a cheque had not been issued for a debt or liability is on the accused. This Court in the case of Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, 2001 (3) RCR (Crl.) 460 SC : 2001(6) SCC 16 has also taken an identical view.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Ram Niwas vs Sh. Ravi Mehto on 1 May, 2025

(24.) The judgments relied upon by the accused deal with the effect of the presumption u/139 NI Act and describe the way in which accused can prove his defence. The cited cases support the case of the accused to the extent that accused has to only prove his defence on the scale of preponderance of probabilities wit or without evidence of his own. It was held in judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC that presumption u/s 139 NI Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from a presumption of fact which describes provisions by which the court "may presume" a certain state of affairs. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law or fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non existence of the presumed fact. In other words, presumptions do not preclude the person against whom the presumption is drawn from rebutting it and proving the contrary. A fact is said to be proved when, "after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists". Therefore, the rebuttal does not have to be conclusively established but such evidence must be adduced before the Court in support of the defence that the Court must either believe the defence to exist or consider its existence to be reasonably probable, the standard of reasonability being that of the 'prudent man'.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ashraf Khan vs Joam Khan on 8 February, 2010

Z>[ W \ VI\ V ZFY W Z*[u\L] ^_Z `FW:` Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee's case and K. N. Beena Vs. Muniyappan and a kc\ ] r r Z rI]~r W oQZ(`;X W f(` \nf\ V Z>X|] oQZGacbQf a;X&Z(m6Y W:` }Q\ V ] \€:‚ another's case " ...... The Courts must be on guard to see that merely on the application for presumption as contemplated under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the same may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction."
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next