Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.28 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
15. 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.
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this
Court in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139,
we now summarise the principles enumerated by this
Court in the following manner: 25.1. Once the
execution of cheque is admitted Section 139 of the Act
mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the
discharge of any debt or other liability.
25.2. The presumption under Section 139 is a
rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the
accused to raise probable defence. The standard of
proof for rebutting the presumption is that of
preponderance of probabilities.
Section 145 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Prakash Kumar Panjwani vs Bisahin Bai 30 Wps/3794/2018 Shukhi Ram ... on 18 May, 2018
ported in ILR 2012 KAR 4815 our Hon'ble High Court has held
that - If the documents had been illegally obtained by the com-
plainant, it is inexplicable that the petitioner did not choose to
give a complaint to the police or to take other measures insofar
as that conduct of the complainant is concerned and hence has
disbelieved the evidence set forth - Applying the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Court to the present case on hand, the accused
in this case also has not taken up any legal measures neither
against complainant nor against the Bank and its employees re-
garding possession of cheque. From this an inference can be
drawn that no prudent man will keep himself silent without tak-
ing any steps to safeguard his interest when his document lies
with the possession of other party.
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
14. The combined effect of these two provisions is a
presumption that the cheque is 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.