Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.37 seconds)
Narasimhegowda C M vs Smt. Deepthi R on 11 January, 2023 cites

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

17. The decisions relied on by learned counsel for the appellant and principles stated in those decisions are very well settled. There is no dispute about it. The facts and evidence placed before the Court and the circumstances under which the cheque came to be dishonoured and the plausible and probable explanation given by the accused will have to be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the said presumption arising under section 139 of N.I. Act in various decisions wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa v. S. Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 1441, modified the judgment of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde reported in AIR (2008) 4 SC 1325 wherein it is held that the presumption is that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability, but is rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence where the existence of legally enforceable debt or debt can be contested.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

P. Rasiya vs Abdul Nazer on 12 August, 2022

8. Learned counsel further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Crl.A.No.1233-1235/2022 in the case of P. Rasiya V. Abdul Nazeer and another dated 08.12.2022 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the presumption under section 139 of N.I. Act and held that unless -7- CRL.A No. 910 of 2011 contrary is proved, it shall be presumed that the holder of the cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for discharge in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Therefore, once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant that the cheque was issued by the accused and the signature and the issuance of the cheque is not disputed by the accused, in that case, the onus will shift upon the accused to prove the contrary that the cheque was not for any debt or other liability. So with these arguments, learned counsel prayed to set-aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 2 - Cited by 192 - Full Document

M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008

On the other hand, the accused has taken a probable defence that her husband Nagabhushan had transaction with one Shivanna and the accused alongwith another person came to Bengaluru and -9- CRL.A No. 910 of 2011 said Shivanna made her to come to Kumaraswamy police station and in the said police station, by force, the cheque was obtained from her. There was also understanding in the police station that the said cheque will not be presented for encashment, but apprehending that the complainant would present the same, the accused has given intimation to the Bank to stop payment. Therefore, simply because the complainant has filed a case, the accused cannot be convicted. Learned JMFC has considered all the aspects and relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa V. Mohan reported in AIR 2010 1898 and M/s. Kumar Exports vs. M/S Sharma Carpets reported in AIR 2009 SC 1518 and has rightly come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove the initial burden and therefore, learned JMFC has rightly dismissed the complaint.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 3169 - J M Panchal - Full Document

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

17. The decisions relied on by learned counsel for the appellant and principles stated in those decisions are very well settled. There is no dispute about it. The facts and evidence placed before the Court and the circumstances under which the cheque came to be dishonoured and the plausible and probable explanation given by the accused will have to be considered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the said presumption arising under section 139 of N.I. Act in various decisions wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rangappa v. S. Mohan reported in (2010) 11 SCC 1441, modified the judgment of Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde reported in AIR (2008) 4 SC 1325 wherein it is held that the presumption is that there exists legally enforceable debt or liability, but is rebuttable presumption and it is open to the accused to raise a defence where the existence of legally enforceable debt or debt can be contested.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 3978 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next