Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 4 July, 2006
11. It is a well settled position of law that when a negotiable
instrument is drawn, two statutory presumptions arises in favour of the
complaint, one under Section 139 NI Act and another under Section 118 (a) of
the NI Act. Further, the court will presume a negotiable instrument for
consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either
believes that the consideration does not exist or consider the non existence of
the consideration so probable that a prudent person may ought under the
circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that the
M/s Nature's Essence vs M/s Shri Ram Distributors CC No.467884/2016
CC No. 463462/2016
page no. 6 of 14
7
consideration does not exist. For rebutting such presumption, what is needed is
to raise a probable defence. Even for the said purpose, the evidence adduced on
behalf of the complainant could be relied upon. Reliance placed on M.S.
Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala, (2006) 6 SCC 39).
Section 85 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Powers-Of-Attorney Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 204 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
1