Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
In view of the position of law discussed in Basalingappa vs.
Mudibasappa (Supra), what comes to the fore is that once the
execution of cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Act mandates a
presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other
liability. The admission of the accused of his signatures on the cheque
in question, the factum of issuance of the cheque and in view of the
fact that the cheque in question has been drawn from the account of
the accused, a statutory presumption is bound to be raised in favour of
the complainant that the cheque in question was issued by the accused
for the discharge of a legally recoverable debt or liability.
M/S Kalamani Tex vs P. Balasubramanian on 10 February, 2021
17. So far as the factum of liability is concerned, in view of the
mandatory presumptions of law as discussed above, if an accepted
signed cheque has been produced the complainant, then there cannot
be any inherent lacuna in the existence of the liability. Recently, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalamani Tex & Anr. v. P.
Balasubramanian (2021 SCC Online SC 75) held as follows: