Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (3.76 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
11. Learned counsel for the defendant relied on the judgment
in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Others [1995 KHC 182]
which held that a litigant who approaches the court is bound to
procude all documents executed which are relevant to the litigation
and if withhold a vital document in order to gain advantage, he
would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the
opposite party.
Velayudhan vs Velayudhan on 9 January, 2001
The counsel also relied on Velayudhan v.
Velayudhan [2001 KHC 113] to contend that mere admission of
signature does not amount to proof of execution, as execution
involves intention to be bound by the completed document.
M.C. Priyamvada vs M.G. Ajayan And Others on 11 August, 2014
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would argue
that since the defendant had admitted the signature in Ext.A1
cheque, the burden of proving the transaction he pleaded was on
him and having miserably failed to discharge the said burden, the
suit ought to have been decreed. Learned counsel also relied on
Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the
judgments in Priyamvada K. v. M. Rahufina [2024 (1) KHC 245],
Parameswaran v. Smitha Suresh [2024 (6) KHC 27] and Rajesh Jain v.
Ajay Singh [(2023) 10 SCC 148] to contend that in a case where the
cheque and the signature are admitted by the accused, the
presumption under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 would operate and the burden shifts to the
RFA NO. 463 OF 2005 6 2026:KER:30413
accused to disprove or show the non existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability.
1