Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
Further, it has been
held by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan [(2010) 11
SCC 441] that the presumption contemplated under
Section 139 of NI Act includes the presumption of
existence of a legally enforceable debt. Once the
presumption is raised, it is for the accused to rebut the
same by establishing a probable defence.
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
The provision
lays down the presumption that the holder of the cheque
received it for the discharge, in whole or part, of any
debt or other liability. The combined effect of these two
provisions is a presumption that the cheque was drawn
for consideration and given by the accused for the
discharge of debt or other liability. Both the sections
use the expression "shall", which makes it imperative
for the court to raise the presumptions, once the
foundational facts required for the same are proved.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs. Bratindranath
Banerjee [(2001) 6 SCC 16].