Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.54 seconds)
Smt Shashikala Aithal vs Sri D J Partha Sarathy on 29 July, 2025 cites

Mukesh Kumar vs Bir Singh on 21 November, 2017

In passing the impugned judgment and order dated 21-11-2017 [Mukesh Kumar v. Bir Singh, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5352] , the High Court misconstrued Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which mandates that unless the contrary is proved, it is to be presumed that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138, for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. Needless to mention that the presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the onus of proving that the cheque was not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused drawer of the cheque.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - K Singh - Full Document

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

NC: 2025:KHC:29190 CRL.A No. 1163 of 2011 HC-KAR to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The obligation on the prosecution may be discharged with the help of presumptions of law and presumptions of fact unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of the non-existence of the presumed fact as held in Hiten P. Dalal [Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee, (2001) 6 SCC 16 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 960] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 3807 - R Pal - Full Document

Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs In Item Nos. 151, 211 & 212. Mr Puneet ... on 12 September, 2022

In K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan [K.N. Beena v. Muniyappan, (2001) 8 SCC 458 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 14] , this Court held that in view of the provisions of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 118 thereof, the Court had to presume that the cheque had been issued for discharging a debt or liability. The said presumption was rebuttable and could be rebutted by the accused by proving the contrary. But mere denial or rebuttal by the accused was not enough. The accused had to prove by cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability. This Court clearly held that the High Court had erroneously set aside the conviction, by proceeding on the basis that denials/averments in the reply of the accused were sufficient to shift the burden of proof on the complainant to prove that the cheque had been issued for discharge of a debt or a liability. This was an entirely erroneous approach. The accused had to prove in the trial by leading cogent evidence that there was no debt or liability."
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 315 - V Bakhru - Full Document
1