Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.50 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
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]
The Companies Act, 1956
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
presumption of law) and conclusive presumptions
(irrebuttable presumption of law). The distinction between
'may presume' and 'shall presume' clauses is that, as regards
the former, the Court has an option to raise the presumption
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