Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.40 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 146 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
Devinder Singh Hudan (2019)10 SCC 287 that Trial Court cannot proceed as if
the complainant is required to prove the debt owed to him. Statutory presumption
has to be raised in his favour which can only be rebutted by either showing that
consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of
Ct. Case No. 401/2018 Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. Kamlesh PS North Rohini Page No. 17/22
the case non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man
ought to suppose that no consideration or debt existed. Although showcasing that
complainant did not have adequate financial capacity to lend money to accused
amounts to a probable defence and can help in rebutting the statutory presumption
that is accrued to the benefit of complainant [ Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa
(2019)5 SCC 418]. But once accused discharges the burden of rebutting legal
presumption that arose u/s 139 NI Act, then accused is within his right to
challenge and complainant will then have to prove his/her financial capability.