Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (1.74 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
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)]
21
Section 139 NI Act-Effect of Presumption and Shifting of Onus of
Proof
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Assam Money Lenders Rules
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
45. Therefore, in fine, it can be said that once the accused adduces
evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that on a preponderance of
probabilities there exists no debt/liability in the manner pleaded in the
complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-evidence, the burden
shifts to the complainant and the presumption 'disappears' and does not
haunt the accused any longer. The onus having now shifted to the
complainant, he will be obliged to prove the existence of a debt/liability
as a matter of fact and his failure to prove would result in dismissal of
his complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 139 does
not again come to the complainant's rescue. Once both parties have
adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of
proof loses all its importance. [Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa, AIR
2019 SC 1983; See also, Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441]
Our Analysis
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
45. Therefore, in fine, it can be said that once the accused adduces
evidence to the satisfaction of the Court that on a preponderance of
probabilities there exists no debt/liability in the manner pleaded in the
complaint or the demand notice or the affidavit-evidence, the burden
shifts to the complainant and the presumption 'disappears' and does not
haunt the accused any longer. The onus having now shifted to the
complainant, he will be obliged to prove the existence of a debt/liability
as a matter of fact and his failure to prove would result in dismissal of
his complaint case. Thereafter, the presumption under Section 139 does
not again come to the complainant's rescue. Once both parties have
adduced evidence, the Court has to consider the same and the burden of
proof loses all its importance. [Basalingappa vs. Mudibasappa, AIR
2019 SC 1983; See also, Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441]
Our Analysis
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 about the activation of the presumptive clause. [Bharat Barrel
Vs. Amin Chand] [(1999) 3 SCC 35]