Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Vijender Singh vs M/S Eicher Motors Limited & Anr. on 5 May, 2011
Ld.
MM has also relied on the judgment titled as "Vijender Singh Vs. Eicher
Motors Limited & Anr.", wherein it is held that any person who issues
blank signed cheque should understand the consequences of doing so.
Thus, in view the judgments, the appellant has admitted to issue cheque to the
CA No. 16/15. Page No. 8/12
complainant in blank, I am of the view that he has consented impliedly or
expressly to filling up of the cheque by the payee on a later date. Thus, this
contention of ld. Counsel for the appellant carries no force.
Saj Properties Pvt. Ltd. vs Virender Dagar on 9 March, 2015
11. As both DW1 & DW2 have admitted that amount of Rs. 2 lacs
was received, I am of the view that appellant has put up a sham defence. Ld.
Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on judgment titled as "Saj
Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Virender Dagar". I have perused the judgment with
utmost regard but this judgment is not helpful to the facts and circumstances
of the case.
Shajahan T.M vs P.J.Abraham on 17 May, 2010
Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on
judgment 2012 (1) JCC (NI) 20 titled as " SHAJAHAN T.M. Vs. P.J.
ABRAHAM PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE & ANR." but this judgment is
also not helpful to the appellant.
Habbalappa Dundappa Katti And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 2001
In the case of Habballapa Dungappa Katti & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka 2001 (3) Crimes 218 (SC) and in the case of Y. Sreelatha @
Raja Vs. Mukundchand Bothra 2202 (1) All India Banking Law
Judgments 87 at para 31, it was held that the words 'unless the contrary is
proved' contained in Section 118 and 139 of the negotiable instrument Act
would make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by proof and not
by bare explanation, which is merely plausible. Unless the explanation is
supported by proof, the mandatory presumption created by the provisions
cannot be said to the rebutted.
Y.Sreelatha @ Roja vs Mukanchand Bothra on 25 January, 2002
In the case of Habballapa Dungappa Katti & Ors. Vs. State of
Karnataka 2001 (3) Crimes 218 (SC) and in the case of Y. Sreelatha @
Raja Vs. Mukundchand Bothra 2202 (1) All India Banking Law
Judgments 87 at para 31, it was held that the words 'unless the contrary is
proved' contained in Section 118 and 139 of the negotiable instrument Act
would make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by proof and not
by bare explanation, which is merely plausible. Unless the explanation is
supported by proof, the mandatory presumption created by the provisions
cannot be said to the rebutted.
Wilson Mathew vs The State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 15 September, 2015
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Willson
Mathew Vs. State" has held that the security cheque perse could not be kept
out of Section 139 of N.I. Act and held that even though a dishonoured cheque
CA No. 16/15. Page No. 10/12
was as security on the basis of that there is no chance to escape from legal
liability under the provisions of N.I. Act.