Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.48 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
K. Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan And Anr on 29 September, 1999
In K.
Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan; AIR 1999 Supreme
Court 3762; it was observed that as the signature in the cheque is
admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in
:4:
Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was
made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque
bears. Section 139 of the Act enjoins on the Court to presume that
the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or
liability. The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid
presumption.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
In Hiten P. Dalal Vs. Bratindranath Banerjee; AIR 2001
Supreme Court 3897; Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the
appellant's submission that the cheques were not drawn for the
'discharge in whole or in the part of any debt or other liability's is
answered by the third presumption available to the Banks U/S 139
of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This section provides that "it
shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of
a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in Section
138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability." The effect of these presumptions is to place the evidential
burden on the appellant of proving that the cheque was not received
by the Bank towards the discharge of any liability.
M/S M. M. T. C. Ltd. & Anr vs M/S Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. & ... on 19 November, 2001
18. So far the contention of defence regarding the absence of
authorization concerns, it is held in catena of decisions that the
complaint cannot be dismissed on account of non filing of such
resolution/authorization. (M/s M.M.T.C Limited Vs. Medchl
Chemicals 2002 (I) RCR Criminal 318; Associated Cement
Company Vs. Keshwanand 1998 (I) RCR Criminal 309). The
complaint is presented through AR Shri Surender who has also been
examined as a witness during evidence. Therefore the contention of
defence holds no ground.
1