Back
H. P. SANDESH
V. Jayalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Dhanashekar K – Respondent
JUDGMENT
H.P. Sandesh, J. - This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent/complainant before the Trial Court is that the petitioner/accused had approached the respondent in the second week of March 2015 and sought for financial help of Rs.5,00,000/- for a period of 20 months. The petitioner also assured him that she would repay the said amount to him with interest at the rate of 1.5% per annum. Believing the words, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the accused had issued the post dated cheque as security for the amount borrowed, but she did not repay the amount with interest. When the cheque was presented, it was returned with an endorsement 'funds insufficient'. The legal notice was issued and the same was served and despite the service of notice, the accused neither replied nor complied with the demand. Hence, complaint was filed. The Trial Court took the cognizance and the complainant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner cross-examined P.W.1, but not led any de
The presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque, the importance of providing evidence to substantiate defenses, and the significance of documentary evidence in establishing liability.
The failure to rebut the presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can lead to conviction under Sec. 138 of the Act.
The burden of proof on the accused to disprove the existence of any legally recoverable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The main legal point established is that once the signature and execution of a cheque are admitted, there is a presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issu....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply if the accused denies the signature on the cheque, and the complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforce....
Accused failed to rebut Section 139 NI Act presumption with probable defence; conviction upheld due to unchallenged cheque issuance and no proof of repayment or misuse.
The presumption under Sec. 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The capacity to advance the loan and the burden of proving the transaction creating an existing debt are fundamental facts that the complainant must establish. The presumption under Section 139 of th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act can be rebutted by showing doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt, such as....
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
