Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Hon'Ble Supreme Court In Rangappa vs Srimohan; Crl. Appeal No. on 3 October, 2013 cites

Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing ... vs Amin Chand Payrelal on 18 February, 1999

15 We have to examine the matters in issue in the context of Section 118(a) and 139 of the NI Act and decide whether the accused has been able to rebut the presumptions. The Act raises two presumptions, first in regard to the passing of consideration as contained in Section 118 therein and second, a presumption that the holder of cheque receiving the same of the nature referred to in Section 139 discharged in whole or in part any date or other liability. Presumptions both U/s. 118 (a) and 139 are rebuttable in nature. 16 In the case of Bharat Barrel and Drumb Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyare Lal (1999) 3 SSC 35 interpreting Section 118 (a) of the Act, it was opined :
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 1948 - Full Document

Anil Hada vs Indian Acrylic Limited on 26 November, 1999

14 As held in Anil Handa vs. Indian Acrylylic Ltd. reported as AIR 2000 SC 145, under section 139 of the Act there is a legal presumption that the cheque was issued for discharging an antecedent liability and this presumption can be rebutted by the person who gives the cheque. The presumption is for casting the burden of proof as to who should adduce evidence in a case. It is open to the accused to adduce evidence to rebut the said presumption.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 371 - Full Document
1   2 Next