Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)

Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 21 January, 2014

04. As per directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Indian Bank Association vs Union of India reported in 2014 (5) SCC 590, the sworn statement is treated as examination in chief of complainant. In order to prove the accusation made against the accused, the complainant examined herself as PW1 and got marked 04 documents as Ex P1 to Ex.P4 and Ex P3(a).
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 523 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019

"20. Now so far as the reliance is placed by Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused on the decision of this Court in the case of Basalingappa (supra), on going through the said decision, we are of the opinion that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the accused. In that case before this Court, the defense by the accused was that the cheque amount was given by the complainant to the accused by way of loan. When the proceedings were initiated under Section 138 of the N.I. Act the accused denied the debt liability and the accused raised the defense and questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. To that, the complainant failed to prove and establish his financial capacity. Therefore, this 19 C.C.No.4379/2017 Court was satisfied that the accused had a probable defense and consequently in absence of complainant having failed to prove his financial capacity, this Court acquitted the accused. In the present case, the accused never questioned the financial capacity of the complainant. We are of the view that whenever the accused has questioned the financial capacity of the complainant in support of his probable defense, despite the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act about the presumption of legally enforceable debt and such presumption is rebuttable, thereafter the onus shifts again on the complainant to prove his financial capacity and at that stage the complainant is required to lead the evidence to prove his financial capacity, more particularly when it is a case of giving loan by cash and thereafter issuance of a cheque. That is not a case here."
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 2275 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Aps Forex Services Pvt Ltd vs Shakti International Fashion Linkers on 14 February, 2020

29. The learned counsel for accused argued as complainant failed to prove financial capacity. At this stage it is relevant to discuss about judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 193 in the case of APS Forex Services Pvt. Ltd vs Shakti International Fashion Linker and Other in para 20 held , which reproduced as follows :
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 251 - M R Shah - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

31. As per section 139 of the N.I.Act, it shall be presumed unless contrary is proved, that the holder of cheque has received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 of N.I. Act for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. The Full bench judgement of 21 C.C.No.4379/2017 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rangappa vs Sri Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441 has held that presumption mandated by section 139 of N.I.Act does indeed include the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, once the initial burden is discharged by the complainant that the cheque is issued by accused and the signature, the burden casted on the accused to prove the contrary that cheque is not issued for any debt or other liability. The said proposition of law is laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the P Rasiya V/s. Abdul Nazer and another. In the Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2021 (5) SCC 283 in the case of M/S Kalamani Tex V/s.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 Next