Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Rubfila International Ltd vs Alok Gupta on 21 April, 2018 cites

M/S. Modi Cements Ltd vs Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi on 2 March, 1998

16. Just such a contention has been negatived by this Court has, in the case of Modi Cement Ltd. V. Kuchil Kumar Nandi, 1998 (1) CTC 402. It has been held that even though the cheque is dishonoured by reason of 'stop payment' instruction an offence under Section 138 still be made out. It is held that the presumption under Section 139 is attracted in such a case also. The authority shows that even when the cheque is dishonoured by reason of stop payment instructions by virtue of Section 139 the Court has to presume that the cheque was received by the holder for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or liability. Of course this is a rebuttable presumption. The accused can thus show that the stop payment instructions were not issued because of insufficiency or paucity of funds. If the amount of the cheque at the account there was sufficient funds to clear the amount of the cheque at the time of presentation of the cheque for encashment at the drawer bank and that the stop payment notice had been issued because of other valid causes including that there was no existing debt or liability at the time of presentation of cheque for encashment, then offence under Section 138 would not be made out. The important thing is that the burden of so proving would be on the accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 411 - S P Kurdukar - Full Document
1