Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (7.21 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 himself as PW1 and got marked 05 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P5. The defence failed to cross-examine PW1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 523 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019

16. In that regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its Judgment reported in 2019(5) SCC 418 in the case of Basalingappa V/s Mudibasappa discussed the 10 C.C.No.23446/2023 manner in which accused could rebut the presumption raised under section 118 and 139 of Negotiable instruments Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Basalingappa Vs. Mudibasappa reported in 2019 (5) SCC 418 laid down principles regarding how presumption under section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act can be rebutted. As per the said judgement it is not necessary to accused to enter into witness box to rebut the presumptions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 2275 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

18. The Full bench judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rangappa vs Sri Mohan reported in 2010(11) SCC 441 held that presumption mandated by section 139 of N.I.Act does indeed include the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability. Therefore, 11 C.C.No.23446/2023 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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document
1   2 Next