Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 35 (0.30 seconds)
M/S. Appolo Tyres Ltd vs M/S. H.M. Tyres And Another on 6 June, 2014 cites

Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001

11-D. Further, as per the expression of the Apex Court in RANGAPPA vs. MOHAN (3-Judges Bench) paras-9 to 15 referring to GOA PLASTS (supra), KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT (supra) by distinguishing at para-14 saying the observation in KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT (supra) of the presumption mandated by Section 139 does not, indeed, include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, is not correct, though, in other respects, correctness of the decision does not in any way cause doubted; by also referring to Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee holding at paras-22 and 23 therein of the obligation on the part of the Court to raise the presumption under 138, 139 and 118 of the N.I. Act, in every case where the factual basis for raising the presumption has been established since introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused, as a presumption of law distinguished from a presumption of fact as part of rules of evidence and no way in conflict with the presumption of innocence and the proof by prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but for saying to rebut the accused can discharge the burden showing reasonable probability of non-existence of the presumption of fact and to that proposition, the earlier expression in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal para-12 showing the burden on the accused is to bring on record by preponderance of probability, either direct evidence or by referring to circumstances upon which he relies, rather than a bare denial of passing of the consideration; apparently that does not appear to be of any defence to get the benefit in discharge of the onus against, also held referring the M.M.T.C. Ltd. and another v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) LTD that where the accused able to show justification of stop payment letter even from funds are there, but no existence of debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment, to say no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act made out in discharge of the burden.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 3807 - R Pal - Full Document

Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing ... vs Amin Chand Payrelal on 18 February, 1999

11-D. Further, as per the expression of the Apex Court in RANGAPPA vs. MOHAN (3-Judges Bench) paras-9 to 15 referring to GOA PLASTS (supra), KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT (supra) by distinguishing at para-14 saying the observation in KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT (supra) of the presumption mandated by Section 139 does not, indeed, include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, is not correct, though, in other respects, correctness of the decision does not in any way cause doubted; by also referring to Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee holding at paras-22 and 23 therein of the obligation on the part of the Court to raise the presumption under 138, 139 and 118 of the N.I. Act, in every case where the factual basis for raising the presumption has been established since introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused, as a presumption of law distinguished from a presumption of fact as part of rules of evidence and no way in conflict with the presumption of innocence and the proof by prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but for saying to rebut the accused can discharge the burden showing reasonable probability of non-existence of the presumption of fact and to that proposition, the earlier expression in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal para-12 showing the burden on the accused is to bring on record by preponderance of probability, either direct evidence or by referring to circumstances upon which he relies, rather than a bare denial of passing of the consideration; apparently that does not appear to be of any defence to get the benefit in discharge of the onus against, also held referring the M.M.T.C. Ltd. and another v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) LTD that where the accused able to show justification of stop payment letter even from funds are there, but no existence of debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment, to say no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act made out in discharge of the burden.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 1948 - Full Document

M/S M. M. T. C. Ltd. & Anr vs M/S Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P. Ltd. & ... on 19 November, 2001

11-D. Further, as per the expression of the Apex Court in RANGAPPA vs. MOHAN (3-Judges Bench) paras-9 to 15 referring to GOA PLASTS (supra), KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT (supra) by distinguishing at para-14 saying the observation in KRISHNA JANARDHAN BHAT (supra) of the presumption mandated by Section 139 does not, indeed, include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, is not correct, though, in other respects, correctness of the decision does not in any way cause doubted; by also referring to Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee holding at paras-22 and 23 therein of the obligation on the part of the Court to raise the presumption under 138, 139 and 118 of the N.I. Act, in every case where the factual basis for raising the presumption has been established since introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof in criminal cases and shifts the onus on to the accused, as a presumption of law distinguished from a presumption of fact as part of rules of evidence and no way in conflict with the presumption of innocence and the proof by prosecution against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but for saying to rebut the accused can discharge the burden showing reasonable probability of non-existence of the presumption of fact and to that proposition, the earlier expression in Bharat Barrel & Drum Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal para-12 showing the burden on the accused is to bring on record by preponderance of probability, either direct evidence or by referring to circumstances upon which he relies, rather than a bare denial of passing of the consideration; apparently that does not appear to be of any defence to get the benefit in discharge of the onus against, also held referring the M.M.T.C. Ltd. and another v. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) LTD that where the accused able to show justification of stop payment letter even from funds are there, but no existence of debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment, to say no offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act made out in discharge of the burden.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 617 - S N Variava - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next