Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.31 seconds)
Sh. Suresh Kumar Goel vs Sh. Tarun Kumar Nagpal on 23 January, 2019 cites

Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008

26. It is held by the Apex Court in Krishan Janardan Bhat Vs. Dattatrey G. Hegde, 2008 that it is for the Court to do a balancing act between the statutory presumption arising in favour of the plaintiff on one side and the material produced by the defendant to rebut such presumption on the other side with the view to ascertain the truth. In the present matter, the following facts shows that the defence of the defendant that cheques in question were given as security for future supply of goods is not a true one:
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 3978 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

c) It is accepted by the defendant that he received the legal notice dated 17.11.2005 Ex. PW­1/5 sent by the plaintiff, however, it is submitted by him that he could not reply the same. Non reply of the legal notice shows that the defendant had nothing to say against the legal notice. It shows that he had no objection regarding presentation of the cheques for encashment (reliance being placed on Rangappa Vs. Mohan, 2010­TLPRE­0­300 and Iftikar Alam Vs. Naved Hasan, 2012 (1) LRC 172 Delhi).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Attar Singh Wadhwa vs Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 23 December, 2009

27. Though in the present matter alleged loan of Rs. 1,50,000/­ was given in cash, there is no written agreement regarding that loan and the plaintiff could not prove the source from where he arranged the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/­, he has also not shown the loan in his income tax return, but presumption U/s 118 of N.I. Act is a mandatory presumption in favour of the plaintiff and the same cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the defendant is reasonable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The task of the defendant is not as simple as for rebutting the statutory presumption he must place such material which can inspire confidence of the Court to believe the case of the defendant then that of the plaintiff who is in possession of the dishonored cheques issued by none else, but the defendant himself Suit No. 94567/16 21/24 (reliance placed on Attar Singh Wadhwa v. NCT of Delhi, Delhi High Court 23.12.2009). A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. In the present matter, on the basis of above­stated discussion it can be safely held that the defence of the defendant is not a true one, as the same is inconsistent. Thus, the defendant failed to rebut the presumption U/s 118 N.I. Act. In the present matter, it has been established that the defence taken by the defendant is a false one. Since the defendant has failed to rebut the presumption this Court cannot ask the plaintiff to prove the liability of the defendant by positive evidence as the presumption is living and existing.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 42 - K Gambhir - Full Document
1   2 Next