Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.72 seconds)
P. Manjunath Reddy vs Sadashiva Reddy B N on 2 May, 2025 cites

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

36. In this case, the accused himself unequivocally admitted that himself has handed over the 12 cheques to the complainant and further he has also stated that himself has written the amount in words and figures and also put his signatures. Therefore, heavy burden lies on accused to disprove the complainant's contention and rebut the presumption based on doctrine of reverse burden as law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs Mohan's case (AIR 2010 SC 1898).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

G. Vasu vs Syed Yaseen Sifuddin Quadri on 8 December, 1986

33. The Evidence Act provides for presumptions, which fit within one of three forms: 'may presume' (rebuttable presumptions of fact), 'shall presume' (rebuttable presumption of law) and conclusive presumptions (irrebuttable presumption of law). The distinction between 'may presume' and 'shall presume' clauses is that, as regards the former, the Court has an option to raise the presumption or not, but in the latter case, the Court must necessarily raise the presumption. If in a case the Court has an option to raise the presumption and raises the presumption, the distinction between the two categories of presumptions ceases and the fact is presumed, unless and until it is disproved, [G.Vasu V. Syed Yaseen (Supra)] Section 139 NI Act-Effect of Presumption and Shifting of Onus of Proof
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 23 - Cited by 63 - Full Document

Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing ... vs Amin Chand Payrelal on 18 February, 1999

36. The Court will necessarily presume that the cheque had been issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability in two circumstances. Firstly, when the drawer of the cheque admits issuance/execution of the cheque and secondly, in the event where the complainant proves that cheque was issued/executed in his favour by the drawer. The circumstances set out above form the fact(s) which bring Crl.A.No.887/2022 C/W 39 Crl.Rev.P.No.507/2022 about the activation of the presumptive clause. [Bharat Barrel Vs. Amin Chand] [(1999) 3 SCC 35]
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 1948 - Full Document
1   2 Next