Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 146 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
16.The NI Act raises two important legal presumption in favour of the holder
of the cheque as soon as the execution of cheque is proved. Firstly, as per
Section 118(a), NI Act, it shall be presumed that every negotiable
instrument was 'made, accepted, transferred, negotiated or endorsed for
consideration, unless the contrary is proved'. Secondly, as per section
139, NI Act, it shall be presumed that 'the holder of cheque, received the
cheque for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability,
unless the contrary is proved.' The principle with respect to these
presumptions, have been laid down in Para 25 of the judgment by Hon'ble
apex court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418 which
states as follows:
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
17.Further, the three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rangappa v. S. Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 had ruled that existence of
liability itself is a presumption of law as mandated by Section 139 of NI
Act.
C.C. Alavi Haji vs Palapetty Muhammed & Anr on 18 May, 2007
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty
Muhammed, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 236 at page 565 held as follows: "A
person who does not pay within 15 days of receipt of the summons from
the court along with the copy of the complaint under Section 138 of the
Act, cannot obviously contend that there was no proper service of notice
as required under Section 138, by ignoring statutory presumption to the
contrary under Section 27 of the GC Act and Section 114 of the Evidence
Act."