Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.03 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 142 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Amending Act, 1897
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Ashok Yeshwant Badave vs Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar & Anr on 14 March, 2001
On same facts is the decision of this Court in Ashok
Yeshwant Badave vs. Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar, (2001) 3 SCC 726.
M/S. Modi Cements Ltd vs Shri Kuchil Kumar Nandi on 2 March, 1998
We are in respectful agreement with the view
taken in Modi case. The said view is in consonance with the object of the
legislation. On the faith of payment by way of a post-dated cheque, the payee
alters his position by accepting the cheque. If stoppage of payment before
the due date of the cheque is allowed to take the transaction out of the
purview of Section 138 of the Act, it will shake the confidence which a cheque
is otherwise intended to inspire regarding payment being available on the due
date."
Section 140 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Trilok Chand Jain vs State Of Delhi on 19 August, 1975
"The burden was on the appellant to disapprove (sic disprove) the
presumptions under Sections 138 and 139, a burden which he failed to
discharge at all. The averment in the written statement of the appellant was
not enough. Incidentally, the defence in the written statement that the four
cheques were given for intended transactions was not the answer given by
the appellant to the notice under Section 138. Then he had said that the
cheques were given to assist the Bank for restructuring (Ext.H). It was
necessary for the appellant at least to show on the basis of acceptable
evidence either that his explanation in the written statement was so probable
that a prudent man ought to accept it or to establish that the effect of the
material brought on record, in its totality, rendered the existence of the fact
presumed, improbable. (Vide Trilok Chand Jain vs. State of Delhi, (1975) 4
SCC 761). The appellant has done neither. In the absence of any such proof
the presumption under Sections 138 and 139 must prevail."
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
Learned counsel relied on paragraph 38 of the judgment of this Court in the case
of Hiten P. Dalal versus Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16 which reads as
under: