Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 41 (0.28 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
In, Basalingappa vs.
Mudibasappa (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for
the respondent, though on facts the ultimate conclusion
therein was against raising presumption, the facts and
circumstances are entirely different as the transaction
between the parties as claimed in the said case is peculiar
to the facts of that case where the consideration claimed to
have been paid did not find favour with the Court keeping
in view the various transactions and extent of the amount
involved. However, the legal position relating to
presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act
on a signature being admitted has been reiterated. Hence,
whether there is a rebuttal or not would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case.
M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008
a preponderance of probabilities justifying a finding that
there was "no debt/liability". [Kumar Exports v. Sharma
Carpets [Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513 :
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing ... vs Amin Chand Payrelal on 18 February, 1999
Payrelal [Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand
Payrelal, (1999) 3 SCC 35] ]
Section 146 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Rajesh Jain vs Ajay Singh on 9 October, 2023
48. It was laid down in Rajesh Jain (supra) that when the
rt
Court failed to consider the presumption under Section 139 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, its judgment could be interfered
with. It was observed at page 166: