Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.31 seconds)Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bharat Barrel And Drum Manufacturing ... vs Amin Chand Payrelal on 18 February, 1999
22. Once the presumption is raised, the burden of proof shifts upon
the accused to prove otherwise. It is trite law that the accused
does not need to necessarily lead positive evidence in his or her
favour, she can shift the said burden by blowing holes in the
story of the complainant. Reliance is placed upon the judgment
of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Bharat Barrel and Drum Vs.
Amin Chand Pyarelal (1999) 3 SCC 35. It is further pertinent
to note that the standard of proof required to rebut the
presumption u/s.139 NI Act is that of "preponderance of
probabilities" and at the same time, the complainant is required
to prove its case beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 4 July, 2006
2024.04.26
14:14:27
+0530
the nature referred to in Section 138 for discharge, in whole
or in part, of any debt or other liability.
Analysing all the concerned provisions of law and
various pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983,
noted at para 23 as follows [Bharat Barrel and Drum
Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3
SCC 35; M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of
Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Krishna Janardhan
Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54; Kumar
Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513; Rangappa v.
Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 referred]:
Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs Dattatraya G. Hegde on 11 January, 2008
2024.04.26
14:14:27
+0530
the nature referred to in Section 138 for discharge, in whole
or in part, of any debt or other liability.
Analysing all the concerned provisions of law and
various pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983,
noted at para 23 as follows [Bharat Barrel and Drum
Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3
SCC 35; M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of
Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Krishna Janardhan
Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54; Kumar
Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513; Rangappa v.
Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 referred]:
M/S Kumar Exports vs M/S Sharma Carpets on 16 December, 2008
2024.04.26
14:14:27
+0530
the nature referred to in Section 138 for discharge, in whole
or in part, of any debt or other liability.
Analysing all the concerned provisions of law and
various pronouncements in this regard, the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, AIR 2019 SC 1983,
noted at para 23 as follows [Bharat Barrel and Drum
Manufacturing Company v. Amin Chand Pyarelal, (1999) 3
SCC 35; M.S. Narayana Menon alias Mani v. State of
Kerala and another, (2006) 6 SCC 39; Krishna Janardhan
Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54; Kumar
Exports v. Sharma Carpets, (2009) 2 SCC 513; Rangappa v.
Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 referred]: