Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.51 seconds)

Sampelly Satanarayana Rao vs M/S Indian Renewable Energy ... on 8 May, 2014

15. The accused in the written arguments contended that PW1 in the course of cross examination admits that Ex.P2 cheque taken towards security and therefore sec.138 of N.I. Act does not attracts. No doubt PW1 in the cross examination stated that on 29-03-2011 he paid Rs.5 lakhs to the accused and at that time he received the cheque from the accused for security purpose. It is pertinent to that there are catena of decisions of the various Hon'ble High Courts that the cheque issued for security also attracts sec.138 of N.I. Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the recent decision reported in (2016) 10 SCC 458 (Sampelly Sathyanarayana Rao Vs. Indian Renewable energy development agency Ltd.) held that, the cheques issued as security towards discharge of loan and dishonour of such cheques 18 would fall under Sec.138 of N.I Act. As observed above the accused admits that the cheque in question and signature there on belongs to him. The accused fails to substantiate his defence version that he issued the cheque to Dr. G.S. Shivakumar. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rangappa V/s Mohan held that existence of legally enforceable debt or liability is also a matter of presumption u/s 139 of N.I. Act and burden is on the accused to rebut the said presumption. Though the accused cross examined the PW1 at Length and led defence evidence fails to probabalize his defence version. The accused has relied upon the following decisions:
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 25 - M Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next