Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (2.18 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa v. Sri
Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 has categorically held that
once the issuance of the cheque is admitted, the burden
shifts upon the accused to prove that there was no
legally enforceable debt.
K.N. Beena vs Muniyappan And Another on 18 October, 2001
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.N. Beena v.
Muniyappan (2001) 8 SCC 458 has held that "A mere denial
of liability or an assertion that the cheque was obtained by
force will not be sufficient to rebut the statutory
presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act."
S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Neeta Bhalla And Anr on 20 September, 2005
22. The accused has also contended that the
complainant breached contractual obligations. However,
this is irrelevant in proceedings under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act, as laid down in S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v.
Neeta Bhalla (2005) 8 SCC 89, where it was held that "The
dishonour of a cheque gives rise to a strict liability,
independent of the underlying transaction." In view of the
18
Crl.Apl.No.122/2024 JUDGMENT
foregoing reasons, this Court finds no infirmity in the
findings of the Trial Court Accordingly, Point No.2 is
answered in the Affirmative.
1