Back
HIMA KOHLI, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
Sujies Benefit Funds Limited – Appellant
Versus
M. Jaganathuan – Respondent
प्रतिवादी को ₹28,50,000/- की राशि का भुगतान करने का आदेश दिया गया है। साथ ही, प्रतिवादी ने अपनी अनुपालन हलफनामे में उल्लेख किया है कि उसकी उम्र 86 वर्ष है और वह अपनी पत्नी के साथ रहता है, जो भी वृद्ध है, और उसके कोई संतान नहीं है। इस कारण, सजा-ए-मौत को माफ कर दिया गया है, लेकिन शर्त यह है कि वह इस निर्णय के अनुसार आठ महीनों के भीतर भुगतान कर दे, यदि ऐसा नहीं किया तो एक वर्ष की सादा सजा फिर से लागू हो जाएगी।
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard Mr B. Ragunath, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel for the respondent.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present appeal arises out of the Final Judgment dated 29.01.2020 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment”), passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.582/ 2012, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the judgment dated 20.06.2012 of the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore (hereinafter referred to as the “Appellate Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.186/2010, was upheld.
BRIEF FACTS:
4. The sole Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as the “accused”), being a subscriber of the Appellant-chitfund company (hereinafter also referred to as the “complainant”), borrowed loan amounts on several dates from the Appellant over a period of about two years which swelled to a sum of Rs.21,09,000/-(Rupees Twenty One Lakhs and Nine Thousand) including interest, after eight years. The loans were advanced in the following manner: Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousa
Dishonour of cheque – Closure of bank accounts within a few weeks of issuance of cheque raises serious questions about conduct and intent of respondent.
Presumption under Section 139 of NI Act merely raises a presumption in favour of a holder of cheque that same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability and existence of legally rec....
The judgment highlights the importance of consistent and reliable evidence in cases involving the dishonoring of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused must raise a probable defense to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
Point of Law : When the accused was under financial constraints, the loan was taken and not disputed the fact that the cheque was given in 2004. Though contended that date of cheque has not been ment....
A negotiable instrument, which includes a cheque, carries presumption of consideration under Sections 118(a) and 139 of N.I Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
