Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.35 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]
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 4 July, 2006
In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani (Supra), it has been
explained that this onus on the accused may be discharged and in this regard
reference is made to the case of Goaplast (P) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D'Souza and
Another (2003) 3 SCC 232, wherein the Apex Court held that the presumption
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA CRL.A.657/2025 Page 9 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:23:40
arising under Section 139 of the Act can be rebutted by adducing evidence and
the burden of proof is on the person who wants to rebut the presumption. .
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Goaplast Pvt. Ltd vs Shri Chico Ursula D'Souza & Anr on 7 March, 2003
In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani (Supra), it has been
explained that this onus on the accused may be discharged and in this regard
reference is made to the case of Goaplast (P) Ltd. v. Chico Ursula D'Souza and
Another (2003) 3 SCC 232, wherein the Apex Court held that the presumption
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RITA CRL.A.657/2025 Page 9 of 20
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:23:40
arising under Section 139 of the Act can be rebutted by adducing evidence and
the burden of proof is on the person who wants to rebut the presumption. .
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
37. Similarly, in Rangappa vs. Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441, the Apex
Court held that Section 139 NI Act is an example of reverse onus clause that
has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the
credibility of negotiable instruments. The rebuttable presumption under Section
139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. Apex Court
has explained that when an accused has to rebut the presumption under
Section 138 NI Act, the standard of proof for doing so is that of
"preponderance of probability".
M/S Alliance Infrastructure Project ... vs Vinay Mittal on 18 January, 2010
In case of M/s. Alliance Infrastructure vs. Vinay Mittal,
MANU/DE/0031/2010, it was explained that the expression "amount of
money" means in a case where the admitted liability of the drawer of the
cheque gets reduced on account of part payment made by him after issuing
but before presentation of cheque in question. No doubt, the expression
"amount of money" would mean the amount of cheque alone in case the
amount payable by the drawer on the date of presentation of cheque, is more
than the amount of the cheque.