Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 118 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
Section 251 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hiten P. Dalal vs Bratindranath Banerjee on 11 July, 2001
11. The combined effect of these two provisions is a
presumption that the cheque was drawn for consideration
and given by the accused for the discharge of debt or other
liability. Both the sections use the expression "shall",
which makes it imperative for the court to raise the
presumptions, once the foundational facts required for the
same are proved. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, Hiten P. Dalal vs.
Bratindranath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rangappa vs Sri Mohan on 7 May, 2010
12. Further, it has been held by a threejudge bench of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rangappa vs. Sri
Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441 that the presumption
contemplated under Section 139 of NI Act includes the
presumption of existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Once the presumption is raised, it is for the accused to
rebut the same by establishing a probable defence.
Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa on 9 April, 2019
"25. We having noticed the ratio laid down by this Court
in the above cases on Section 118(a) and 139, we now
summarise the principles enumerated by this Court in the
following manner:
1