Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
All India Reserve Bank Retired Officers ... vs Union Of India And Others on 10 December, 1991
In the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Indian Bank Association & Ors vs Union Of
India & others (supra) one of the direction is that the
accused must lead evidence or cross examine the
complainant when the date was fixed for the same and the
case must be decided within three months from the date of
filing, but the accused has kept himself absent and repeatedly
adjournments are sought for cross examination by keeping
the accused absent. Hence, the accused has failed to
putforth any defense to rebut the presumption available in
favour of complainant under Section 118 and 139 of N.I.Act.
The defense taken by the accused is not plausible defense to
create a doubt in the mind of court that there are no such
transactions between the complainant and accused. In such
case, the presumption always lies in favour of complainant
and the complainant has proved the legally recoverable debt.
With these observations I am of the opinion that the
SCCH-12 15 C.C.No.10368/2021
complainant has succeeded to prove the ingredients of
section 138 of N.I.Act against the accused. Hence I have
answered Point No.1 in the "Affirmative".
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Hari Kishan & Anr vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988
When this court pronounced in the
case of Hari Singh vs. Sukhbir Singh
that a court may enforce an order to
pay compensation by imposing the
sentence in default it is open to all
courts in India to follow the said course.
The said legal position would continue
to hold good until it is overruled by a
Bench of this court.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Companies Act, 1956
The Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934
1