Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (1.42 seconds)Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
N.Lakshmi vs P.Damodarasamy on 22 March, 2018
In this regard, I had an occasion to consider this
aspect on the basis of the principle laid down by the
Honourable Apex Court in Rangappa's case in the
judgement reported in 2018 (1) L.W.Crl.584 in the matter
of N.Lakshmi vs. P.Damodarasamy. The relevant paragraphs
are usefully extracted here under:
The General Clauses Act, 1897
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
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 is an initial presumption which favours the
complainant.