Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)
In Matter Of "Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs . Dattatraya G. Hegde" on 16 June, 2020 cites

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

In matter of "Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan" (2010) 11 SCC 441 which is a Full Bench Decision, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while discussing above said provisions, judgments and other case law on the point has held : ­ "26. In light of these extracts, we are in agreement with the respondent claimant that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the Act does indeed include the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability . To the extent, the impugned observations in Krishna Janardhan Bhat may not be correct. However, this does not in any way cast doubt on the correctness of the decision in that case since it was based on the specific facts and circumstances therein. As noted in the citations, this is of course in the nature of a rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defense wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. However, there can be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant".
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao vs Thadikonda Ramulu Firm & Ors on 16 May, 2008

In matter of "Mallavarapu Kasivisweswara Rao Vs. Thadikonda Ramulu Firm" (2008) 7 SCC 655, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (though it was a civil matter related to promissory note, but is relevant to refer herein) has held : ­ "17. Under Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court is obliged to presume, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration. It is also a settled position that the initial burden in this regard lies on the defendant to prove the non­existence of consideration by brining on record such facts and circumstances which would lead the court to believe the non­existence of the consideration either by direct evidence or by preponderance of probabilities showing that the existence of consideration was improbable, doubtful or illegal."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 496 - T Chatterjee - Full Document
1   2 Next