Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.42 seconds)

Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019

37. The principles with respect to above mentioned presumptions, have been succinctly laid down in Para 25 of the judgment by Hon'ble apex court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa (2019) 5 SCC 418, which lays down as under­ " 25.1. Once the execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. Digitally signed by ROHIT ROHIT KUMAR KUMAR Date:
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 2275 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Sri K V S Prakash vs Mr P K Sundaraj on 8 August, 2008

41. Before parting with the judgment, it is apposite to mention that this is settled law from case laws ­ K Prakash Vs. T K Sundaram (2008) 1 SCC 258, Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G Hegde AIR 2008 SC 1325 which provide that the burden of proof upon the accused in cases u/s 138 of the N I Act, has to be discharged as per the standards of 'preponderance of probabilities', while, the complainant has to prove his case 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - M M Shantanagoudar - Full Document
1   2 Next