Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.25 seconds)
Amit Jhunjhunwala vs State Of West Bengal And Another on 30 June, 2025 cites

Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010

28. After thoroughly examining the arguments and evidence, the key legal principle that emerges from this case, particularly for matters under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is quite clear. Once the complainant successfully shows the cheque was issued and then dishonoured -- which automatically activates the strong presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 (and, as Rangappa v. Sri Mohan clarified, this includes the presumption of a legally enforceable debt) -- the burden then definitively shifts to the accused to prove otherwise. This isn't a light burden, but it's a real one. A simple denial, remaining silent, or even avoiding proper cross-examination of the complainant's 18 witnesses isn't enough to shake these presumptions. When an accused consciously avoids challenging the complainant's evidence through effective cross-examination and fails to present any credible defence or alternative explanation, those statutory presumptions stand unrebutted. In such circumstances, the complainant's initial case, which was prima facie strong, effectively becomes conclusive proof, fully justifying a conviction. This is especially true when other facts, like the issuance of multiple consecutive cheques, further support the complainant's claim. While the accused only needs to show a 'preponderance of probabilities' for their defence, it demands a real, demonstrable effort to raise a probable doubt about the debt's existence, an effort conspicuously missing here.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 9567 - K G Balakrishnan - Full Document

Triyambak S.Hegde vs Sripad on 23 September, 2021

24. The distinctions drawn by Mr. Ahmed regarding the judgments cited by the complainant, while legally valid in principle, do not sufficiently dilute their applicability to the present facts. For instance, Triyambaks Hegde Vs. Sripad (2022 SCC Online SC 714) is indeed relevant in establishing that an admitted signature triggers the presumption under Section 139. The petitioner's argument that the core issue is the underlying debt's enforceability is precisely what the presumption addresses post- Rangappa.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 366 - A S Bopanna - Full Document

Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008

20. In the event to address this question, the crux of the matter lies in the correct interpretation and application of the presumption enshrined in Section 139 of the N.I. Act: "It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability." It is undisputed that the petitioner, Amit 13 Jhunjhunwala, admitted his signature on the three cheques in question. Once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is automatically triggered. This presumption mandates that the Court shall presume that the cheque was issued for the discharge of a debt or other liability. The Trial Court's interpretation, relying on an initial reading of Krishna Janardhan Bhatt vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde (2008), suggesting that the presumption under Section 139 does not extend to the existence of a legally enforceable debt, therefore warrants careful examination in light of subsequent authoritative pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 3978 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next