Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.35 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
In another decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court of India i.e. Hon'ble Three Judges Bench
Decision reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441 in the
case of Rangappa Vs. Sri. Mohan ., wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that " A. Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 - S.139 - Presumption
under - scope of - Held, presumption mandated
by S. 139 includes a presumption that there
exists a legally enforceable debt or liability -
However such presumption is rebuttable in
nature - Criminal Trial - Proof - Presumptions -
Generally. Further held that "Signature on the
cheque was his, statutory presumption under
S.139 comes into play and the same was not
rebutted even with regard to the materials
17 C.C.No.28947/2017 J
submitted by complainant Appellant not able to
prove "lost cheque" theory - Apart from not
raising a probable defence appellant was also
not able to contest the existence of a legally
enforceable debt or liability - hence, his
conviction by High Court, held, proper.
Sri. V. R. Shresti vs Sri. Bhaskar. P on 15 October, 2019
In this case also
the learned defence counsel argued that, the
complainant has to prove his claim by producing his
evidence as if it is required for proving his debt
before the Civil Court, same cannot be permissible in
a proceedings initiated U/s.138 of N.I. Act, as held
by the Hon'ble Apex court of India in the above
referred decisions, therefore in view of the principles
of law laid down in the above referred decisions it is
presumed that, cheque in question was drawn for
consideration as the Accused has admitted the
cheque in question belongs to him and signature
found on the cheque in question is also that of his
signature.
H.S. Srinivasa vs Girijamma And Ors. on 27 March, 2006
In this regard, it is relevant here
to refer the decision of Hon'ble High Court of
24 C.C.No.28947/2017 J
Karnataka reported in ILR 2006 KAR 2054 in the
case of H.S.Srinivasa Vs. Girijamma and another
wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that " a
reading of sec.20 of the act which is extracted
above reveals that, the words used are ' either
wholly blank or having written therein an
incomplete negotiable instrument'. The
instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete
in a particular in either case, the holder has
authority to make or complete the instrument as
a negotiable one. The authority implied by a
signature to a blank instrument is so vide that,
the party so signing is bound to be a holder in
due course. Promissory notes are often executed
in the name of the payer and left unfilled to be
afterwards filled by the actual holder, the object
being to enable the owner to pass it off to
another without incurring the responsibility as
an endorser. Thus, it is seen that, person in
possession of an incomplete instrument in
maternal particulars has the authority prima
facie to fill it and thus the executants becomes
liable to pay the amount due'.
R Mallikarjuna vs H R Sadashivaiah on 18 June, 2008
Negotiable Instrument Act 1991 - Sec. 138 -
dishonour of cheque - plea -body of cheque was
not written by Accused - held it is not
mandatory and no law prescribes that, the body
of cheque should also be written by the
signatory to the cheque, a cheque could be filled
up anybody and if it is signed by the account
holder of the cheque'. In another decision of
Hon'ble Apex court to India reported in (2002) 7
SCC in the case of P.K. Manmadhan Karthra
Vs.Sanjeeva Raj., wherein it is held that " As long
as signature on the cheque is admitted, whether
the ink with which the other particulars are
filled up is different or that the hand writing is
not that of drawer does not matter. Until
rebutted, the presumption that, cheque was
issued for consideration exists". In another
decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru in a case of Crl. Appeal No. 1664/2003
C/w. Crl.Appeal No.1663/2003 dated: 18.6.2008
in the case of R.Mallikarjuna Vs.
H.R.Sadashivaiah wherein the Hon'ble High Court
26 C.C.No.28947/2017 J
at para No.19 held that " But, the question is,
whether that renders instrument unenforceable.
S.R. Muralidar vs Ashok G.Y. on 17 April, 2001
In this regard, it must be observed that, this
court similar circumstances in the case of S.R.
Muralidar Vs. Ashok G.Y. reported in 3001 (4)
KAR. LJ K. 122 referring to the provisions of
Sections 20, 138, 139, and 140 of the Act and
after interpreting alteration and filling up of the
cheque observed thus " The trial court has
made much about the difference in ink.
Admittedly, Accused cheque is issued bearing
signature of the Accused. It is the contention of
the defence that, blank cheques issued for the
business transactions have been illegally
converted as a subject matter to this case
fastening false liability........ It is not
objectionable or illegal in law to receive a
inchoate negotiable instrument duly signed by
the maker despite the material particulars are
kept blank if done with an understanding and
giving full authority to the payee to fill up the
material contents as agreed upon. Such a course
of action in law cannot vitiate the transaction
nor can invalidate the negotiable instrument
27 C.C.No.28947/2017 J
issued and such transaction fully begins the
maker of the negotiable instrument to the extent
it purports to declare........ The fact that, a
document executed is inchoate with regard to
some of the material particulars would not
render such contract invalid nor make the
instrument illegal or inadmissible. Voluntarily,
if a person were to deliver an inchoate
instrument authorizing the receiver to fill up
the material contents as agreed upon, the
cheque does not get tainted as in admissible nor
it amounts to tampering with the material
particulars...... In the present case there is no
categorical defence version, it is only by
conjunctures and surmises, a case is made out
from the difference in ink between the signature
of the cheque and the other handwritten
contents. Therefore in view of the principles of
law of Hon'ble Apex court of India and also Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka and Madras referred above,
in the present case the Accused has admitted the
signature on Negotiable Instrument i.e. cheque and
he also admitted issuance of the cheque to the
complainant, it is prima-facie proof of authorizing
28 C.C.No.28947/2017 J
the holder in due course i.e. the complainant to fill
up the remaining contents of the Negotiable
Instrument, therefore it cannot lie in the mouth of
the Accused that, the complainant has misused his
blank signed cheque which was allegedly given to
the complainant at the time of borrowing of loan of
Rs.50,000/- in the year 2015, thus the defence of
the Accused cannot be acceptable one.
T. Vasanthakumar vs Vijayakumari on 28 April, 2015
- acquittal - If justified- Accused not disputing
issuance of cheque and his signature on it- Plea
31 C.C.No.28947/2017 J
that it was issued long back as security and
that loan amount was repaid- Not supported by
any evidence - Fact that date was printed,
would not lend any evidence to case of accused-
Acquittal not proper. Hence in the present case
also it is the main defence of the Accused that the
cheque in dispute was given to the complainant at
the time of alleged borrowing loan of Rs.50,000/- in
the year 2015 but in this regard the accused has
not produced documents or proof in such
circumstances by applying the principles of law laid
down in the above decision the defence of the
Accused cannot be acceptable one.