Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.49 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel vs The State Of Gujarat on 10 February, 2020
13. As per sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act are two
important provisions and they provides for raising
mandatory presumptions in favour of the complainant until
the contrary is proved by the accused. Even in the catena of
decisions i.e., in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported
in 2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Bir Singh Vs.
Mukesh Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC 197, in the case
of APS Forex Services (P) Ltd., Vs.Shakthi International
Fashion Linkers reported in 2020(12) SCC 724, in the
case of Rajeshbai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2020(3) SCC 794, in the case of Triyambak S.
Hegde Vs. Sripad reported in Live Law 2021 SC 492 and
it is laid down that, " Once the issuance of cheque and the
signature thereon is admitted by the accused, the court is
required to raise presumption in favour of the complainant
16 C.C.99/2018
stating that, the accused has issued the cheque for some
consideration towards discharge of his legal debt or
liability of the complainant and that the complainant is the
due holder of the said cheque. The burden shifts on the
accused to rebut the statutory presumptions under
sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act." Now, it is well established
law that, the presumption mandated by section 139 of NI
Act, thus indeed includes the existence of legally
enforceable debt or liability and it is open for the accused
to raise a probable defense wherein the existence of legally
enforceable debt or liability can be contested and he shall
prove before the court on preponderance of probabilities,
only thereupon a statutory presumption raised in favour of
the complainant stands rebutted.
Triyambak S.Hegde vs Sripad on 23 September, 2021
13. As per sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act are two
important provisions and they provides for raising
mandatory presumptions in favour of the complainant until
the contrary is proved by the accused. Even in the catena of
decisions i.e., in the case of Rangappa Vs. Mohan reported
in 2010(11) SCC 441, in the case of Bir Singh Vs.
Mukesh Kumar reported in 2019(4) SCC 197, in the case
of APS Forex Services (P) Ltd., Vs.Shakthi International
Fashion Linkers reported in 2020(12) SCC 724, in the
case of Rajeshbai Muljibhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat,
reported in 2020(3) SCC 794, in the case of Triyambak S.
Hegde Vs. Sripad reported in Live Law 2021 SC 492 and
it is laid down that, " Once the issuance of cheque and the
signature thereon is admitted by the accused, the court is
required to raise presumption in favour of the complainant
16 C.C.99/2018
stating that, the accused has issued the cheque for some
consideration towards discharge of his legal debt or
liability of the complainant and that the complainant is the
due holder of the said cheque. The burden shifts on the
accused to rebut the statutory presumptions under
sections 118(a) & 139 of NI Act." Now, it is well established
law that, the presumption mandated by section 139 of NI
Act, thus indeed includes the existence of legally
enforceable debt or liability and it is open for the accused
to raise a probable defense wherein the existence of legally
enforceable debt or liability can be contested and he shall
prove before the court on preponderance of probabilities,
only thereupon a statutory presumption raised in favour of
the complainant stands rebutted.
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
In the well known judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court reported in AIR 2019 SC 1983 , in the case of
17 C.C.99/2018
Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa in para No.19, the top
court of the country held that;