Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (1.30 seconds)

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

In Rangappa versus Sri Mohan[9], this Court held that once issuance of a cheque and signature thereon are admitted, presumption of a legally enforceable debt in favour of the holder of the cheque arises. It is for the accused to rebut the said presumption, though accused need not adduce his own evidence and can rely upon the material submitted by the complainant. However, mere statement of the accused may not be sufficient to rebut the said ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 22:59:20 :::HCHP 37 presumption. A post dated cheque is a well recognized mode of payment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001

26. Hon'ble Apex Court in Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee, 2001(1) Apex Court Journal 617 (SC), has held that although by reason of Sections 138 and 139 of the Act, presumption of law as distinguished from presumption of fact is drawn, the Court has no other ::: Downloaded on - 29/06/2018 22:59:19 :::HCHP 24 option but to draw the same in every case where the factual basis of raising the presumption is established. 'Presumptions .
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 3807 - R Pal - Full Document

M/S Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd And Ors vs M/S Magnum Aviation Pvt Ltd And Anr on 7 April, 2014

In M/S Indus Airways (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that there was no existing liability since contract had been terminated on the date of presentation of cheque for encashment and there was no existing, ascertained or liquidated liability or debt, rather, cheques were given as advance towards sale consideration and not for realization of any certain damage that may arise on account of wrongful termination of purchase order by the purchaser.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 384 - R M Lodha - Full Document
1   2 3 Next