Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.67 seconds)
M/S Mahalaxmi Fabrics vs Krishna Traders on 5 May, 2025 cites

The Mahalaxmi Co-Operative Housing ... vs Dilip Singh Parocha, Smt. Angoori Dilip ... on 17 November, 2006

d.​ Let the file be consigned to the record room, after due compliance. e.​ Pronounced in open court and in presence of both the parties/ or their Counsels.​ DIVYAM LILA ​ (DIVYAM LILA) Digitally signed by Municipal Magistrate, East District DIVYAM LILA Location: Court Room no. Karkardooma Court/Delhi 12, KKD, East, Delhi Date: 2025.05.05 Date: 05.05.2025 16:55:38 +0530 ___________________________end of the document_____________________ CC NI ACT 1758/2020​ ​ M/s Mahalaxmi Fabrics vs Krishna traders​ ​ page 24/ 24
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - R P Desai - Full Document

Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019

b.​ Additionally, the provisions of Sections 139 and 118 of the Act further strengthen the case for the complainant. Section 139 creates a presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, mandating that the court shall presume, unless proven otherwise, that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or other liability. Section 118, on the other hand, provides that there is a presumption that every negotiable instrument, including a cheque, was made for consideration, and that it was transferred for consideration. c.​ In the case of Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418;, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that once the execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 imposes a rebuttable presumption in favour of the complainant, establishing that the CC NI ACT 1758/2020​ ​ M/s Mahalaxmi Fabrics vs Krishna traders​ ​ page 7/ 24 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or liability. The presumption is rebuttable and the accused has the opportunity to raise a probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting this presumption is based on the preponderance of probabilities. d.​ The court further held that it is not mandatory for the accused to enter the witness box to prove their defence. They may rely on the evidence presented by the complainant or any other available materials. The onus to rebut the presumption lies on the accused, but it is important to note that this is an evidentiary burden, not a persuasive one.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 2275 - A Bhushan - Full Document

M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008

f.​ In the backdrop of legal position as enunciated above, it is to be examined by this Court that whether the accused on a scale of preponderance of probabilities has been able to rebut the presumption which has been raised against him and in favour of the complainant, or has been able to demolish the case of the complainant to such extent so as to shift the onus placed upon the accused again on the complainant. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Kumar Exports vs Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, the accused can either prove the non−existence of the consideration and debt by direct evidence or by bringing on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the Court may either believe that the consideration and debt either did not exist or their non−existence was so probable that a prudent CC NI ACT 1758/2020​ ​ M/s Mahalaxmi Fabrics vs Krishna traders​ ​ page 8/ 24 In the court of Sh. Divyam Lila, MM/JMFC, East district, Karkardooma courts, Delhi man may act upon the plea that they did not exist. If the Court comes to the conclusion that the accused has not been able to rebut the presumption raised against him by failing to bring on record direct evidence or by even failing to sufficiently perforate the case of the complainant, the complainant is entitled to a decision in his favour.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 3169 - J M Panchal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next