Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.34 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sadhu Saran Singh vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 26 February, 2016
In the case Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others (2016) 4 SCC 357; the Apex Court observed that;
Section 3 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
In Hiten P Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee, AIR 2001
Supreme Court 3897, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the defence
submission that the cheques were not drawn for the discharge in whole
or in the part of any debt or other liability is answered by the third
presumption available to the banks U/s 139 of the NI Act. This section
provides that "it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that
the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in
Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other
liability". The effect of these presumptions is to place the evidential
burden on the defence of proving that the cheque was not received by
the bank towards the discharge of any liability.