Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Smt Lakshmi Subramanya vs Sri B V Nagesh S/O Venkatanarasaiah on 5 October, 2012
"Even though the Accused has admitted his cheque
and the signature thereon, when the Accused has
denied the issuance of cheque in favour of this
Complainant towards discharge of debt or other
liability, Complainant has to establish his case
and to establish the existence of debt or other
liability. The presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I. Act is a
rebuttable presumption. The Complainant has
failed to establish the existence of any debt. In
such situation, the presumption u/Sec.139 of N.I.
Act would not extend to existence of debt or other
liability.'
47 C.C.No.9710/2009
2013 (3) KCCR 1940 Karnatka High Court between Lakshmi
Subramanya Vs. B.V. Nagesh wherein it is held that;
Smt. Shobha Wd/O. Late Arun Pohare vs Gajanan S/O. Wasudeorao Joshi on 14 August, 2012
2013 (1) Crimes 497 (Bom.) between Smt. Shobha Vs. Gajanan
wherein it is held that;
Vijay vs Laxman & Anr on 7 February, 2013
78. The law laid down in these judgments are applicable to
the facts of the present case on hand and it is very much helpful to
the defence takEn by the Accused. The arguments of the Learned
Counsel for the Accused is that the Accused successfully rebutted
the presumption available to this Complainant u/Sec.139 of N.I.
48 C.C.No.9710/2009
Act by adducing oral and documentary evidence before this court
is fully convinced this court.
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
AIR 2010 Supreme court 1898 between Rangappa vs. Mohan
wherein it is held that;
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008
77. He further argued that the very complaint filed by the
Complainant is not maintainable against this Accused. The
arguments canvassed by the Learned Counsel for the Accused is
fully convinced this court and therefore it is accepted. Likewise the
judgement relied by the Learned Counsel for the Accused in
support of his arguments reported in AIR 2008 (2) Supreme Court
Cases(Cri)166 Krishna Janardhan Bhat V/S Dattatraya G.Hegde in
Criminal Appeal No.518 of 2006, wherein it is held that;
M/S The Jammu & Kashmir Bank vs Abhishek Mittal on 26 May, 2011
71. The law laid down in all these judgments are not
applicable to the facts of the present case on hand and it is nowhere
helpful to the case of the Complainant to hold the Accused guilty of
the cheque amount.