Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.33 seconds)The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 87 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Sheelawanti And Anr., ... vs Delhi Development Authority And Anr. on 3 February, 1995
In Ravi Chopra vs State & Anr, Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi held:
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Suresh Chandra Goyal vs Amit Singhal on 14 May, 2015
In Suresh Chandra Goyal vs Amit Singhal (date of decision 14.05.2015),
M/s Tirupati Structurals Ltd. v. Sarika Parmar CC No. 58694/16 page no. 7 /10
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed:
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
In Rangappa V. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, a three judge bench of
Apex Court observed that, Section 139 of the NI Act is stated to be an example
of a reverse onus clause which is in tune with the legislative intent of improving
the credibility of negotiable instruments.' The Hon'ble Supreme Court further
observed that the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act is at best a regulatory
offence and largely falls in the arena of a civil wrong and therefore the test of
proportionality ought to guide the interpretation of the reverse onus clause. An
accused may not be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. A
reverse onus clause requires the accused to raise a probable defence or creating
doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability for thwarting
the prosecution. The standard of proof for doing so would necessarily be on the
basis of "preponderance of probabilities" and not "beyond shadow of any
doubt".
Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
1