Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.29 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
2024.08.07
14:39:30
+0530 preponderance of probabilities there exists no debt/liability
in the manner pleaded in the complaint or the demand
notice or the affidavit-evidence, the burden shifts to the
Crl. Appeal No: 170/2023 Gajendra Kaushik. Vs M/s Pheumax Pneumatic India Ltd 22/34
complainant and the presumption 'disappears' and does not
haunt the accused any longer. The onus having now shifted
to the complainant, he will be obliged to prove the
existence of a debt/liability as a matter of fact and his
failure to prove would result in dismissal of his complaint
case. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 139 does
not again come to the complainant's rescue. Once both
parties have adduced evidence, the Court has to consider
the same and the burden of proof loses all its importance.
[Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983; See
also, Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441].
G. Vasu vs Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri on 8 December, 1986
33. The Evidence Act provides for presumptions, which fit
within one of three forms: 'may presume' (rebuttable
presumptions of fact), 'shall presume' (rebuttable
LOVLEEN
presumption of law) and conclusive presumptions
Digitally signed
by LOVLEEN (irrebuttable presumption of law). The distinction between
Date: 2024.08.07
14:38:57 +0530
'may presume' and 'shall presume' clauses is that, as regards
the former, the Court has an option to raise the presumption
Crl. Appeal No: 170/2023 Gajendra Kaushik. Vs M/s Pheumax Pneumatic India Ltd 17/34
or not, but in the latter case, the Court must necessarily
raise the presumption. If in a case the Court has an option to
raise the presumption and raises the presumption, the
distinction between the two categories of presumptions
ceases and the fact is presumed, unless and until it is
disproved, [G.Vasu V. Syed Yaseen (Supra)]
Section 139 NI Act-Effect of Presumption and Shifting of
Onus of Proof
Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing ... vs Amin Chand Payrelal on 18 February, 1999
36. The Court will necessarily presume that the
cheque had been issued towards discharge of a legally
enforceable debt/liability in two circumstances. Firstly,
when the drawer of the cheque admits issuance/execution
of the cheque and secondly, in the event where the
complainant proves that cheque was issued/executed in his
favour by the drawer. The circumstances set out above form
the fact(s) which bring about the activation of the
presumptive clause. [Bharat Barrel Vs. Amin Chand]
[(1999) 3 SCC 35]