Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
V.S.Yadav vs Reena on 21 September, 2010
In V.S. Yadav v. Reena, 2010 (4) JCC (NI) 323,
this court observed:
G L Sharma vs Hemant Kishor on 13 January, 2015
In G.L. Sharma v. Hemant Kishore, Cr. A No.1400/2011 decided by
this court in 13.01.2015, this court, inter alia, observed:
K.N. Beena vs Muniyappan And Another on 18 October, 2001
"12. ... ... as observed by Supreme Court in K.N. Beena vs.
Muniyappan & Anr. , (2001) 8 SCC 458 and M.M.T.C. Ltd. and
Anr. vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr., (2002)
1 SCC 234 there is no requirement that the complainant must
specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting
liability. The burden of proving that there was no existing debt
or liability was on the respondent. This they have to discharge
at the trial. None of the respondent stepped in the witness box
so as to subject themselves to cross-examination. Although it
is not incumbent upon the accused to examine himself/herself
in order to discharge the burden of proof and he/she may
discharge the burden on the basis of the material already
brought on record. However, the accused have failed to
discharge the burden and rebut the presumption as discussed
above... ...". (emphasis supplied)
M/S M. M. T. C. Ltd. & Anr vs M/S Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. & ... on 19 November, 2001
"12. ... ... as observed by Supreme Court in K.N. Beena vs.
Muniyappan & Anr. , (2001) 8 SCC 458 and M.M.T.C. Ltd. and
Anr. vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr., (2002)
1 SCC 234 there is no requirement that the complainant must
specifically allege in the complaint that there was a subsisting
liability. The burden of proving that there was no existing debt
or liability was on the respondent. This they have to discharge
at the trial. None of the respondent stepped in the witness box
so as to subject themselves to cross-examination. Although it
is not incumbent upon the accused to examine himself/herself
in order to discharge the burden of proof and he/she may
discharge the burden on the basis of the material already
brought on record. However, the accused have failed to
discharge the burden and rebut the presumption as discussed
above... ...". (emphasis supplied)
Saj Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Virender Dagar on 9 March, 2015
In my view, the said decision is of no avail to the respondent, since it
has been the consistent claim of the appellant that the cheque in question
was issued towards discharge of the liability of Rs.5 lakhs payable under the
sale transaction.
K. Prakashan vs P.K. Surenderan on 10 October, 2007
46. Reliance is also placed by Mr. Dudeja on K. Prakashan v. P.K.
Surendran, Crl A No.1410/2007 decided on 10.10.2007 by the Supreme
Court of India. Reliance is particularly placed on paras 13 and 20 of this
decision. Paragraph 13holds that, whereas the standard of proof so far as the
prosecution is concerned is to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the
defence of the accused has to be established on mere preponderance of
probability.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
H.D. Shourie vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Anr. on 31 March, 1987
26. On the other hand, the appellant has clearly shown from the
documents placed on record that there were no outstanding dues in respect
of the electricity connection obtained by Gulzar Singh. After the transfer of
the connections, the electricity bills raised in the name of Smt. Shakuntala
were regularly paid. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. has also issued a certificate,
certifying that there are no electricity dues of BYPL outstanding in respect
of K No. 12600B090002, and that he is free to surrender the said electricity
connection, on 18.09.2006. The electricity dues of Gulzar Singh, in any
event, would be barred by limitation in view of the judgment of this Court in
H.D. Shourie v. Delhi Municipal Corporation AIR 1987 DEL 219.