Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.40 seconds)
Sri.C.Boregowda vs Sri.M.Prakash on 28 November, 2024 cites

Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 1 February, 2021

NC: 2024:KHC:48935 CRL.A No. 999 of 2014 "13. Adverting to the case in hand, we find on a plain reading of its judgment that the trial court completely overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn under Section 118 and Section 139 of NIA. The statute mandates that once the signature(s) of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument are established, then these "reverse onus" clauses become operative. In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him. This point of law has been crystallised by this Court in Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat in the following words : (SCC pp. 120-21, para 18) "18. In the case at hand, even after purportedly drawing the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, the trial court proceeded to question the want of evidence on the part of the complainant as regards the source of funds for advancing loan to the accused and want of examination of relevant witnesses who allegedly extended him money for advancing it to the accused. This approach of the trial court had been at variance with the principles of presumption in law. After such presumption, the onus shifted to the accused and unless the accused had discharged the onus by bringing on record such facts and circumstances as to show the preponderance
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 346 - Full Document

Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008

"26. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent-claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. To that extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there 2 (2010) 11 SCC 441 3 (2008) 4 SCC 54
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 3978 - S B Sinha - Full Document

M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 4 July, 2006

15. No doubt, and as correctly argued by Senior Counsel for the appellants, the presumptions raised under Sections 118 and Section 139 are rebuttable in nature. As held in M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, which was relied upon in Basalingappa, a probable defence needs to be raised, which must meet the standard of "preponderance of probability", and not mere possibility. These principles were also affirmed in Kumar Exports, wherein it was further held that a bare denial of passing of consideration would not aid the case of accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 4105 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1