Back
J. M. KHAZI
Mitra Finance (R) Mitra Priya – Appellant
Versus
Vasanth Naik – Respondent
JUDGEMENT
1. This appeal is by the complainant, a partnership firm engaged in money lending business, challenging the impugned judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, allowing the appeals filed by accused challenging their conviction and sentence by the Trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court.
3. It is the case of the complainant that it is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of money lending. It is represented by Shri Sudhakar Andrews being the General Power of Attorney holder of Managing Partner Shri N. Achutha Holla. The accused are in charge and control of the affairs of M/s.Sri Krishna Combines, a partnership firm represented by its partners i.e., accused No.2-Vasanth Naik and accused No.3-V.S.C.Holla .They are the persons responsible for day today business transaction of accused No.1-Firm.
3.1. On 25.6.1993, accused Nos.2 and 3 have borrowed loan of Rs.50,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at 23% per annum within a period of one month. They have executed an on demand promissory note as principal borrowe
The main legal point established in the judgment is that retirement from a partnership firm subsequent to the issuance of a cheque does not exonerate the partners who had given the cheque when they w....
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted if the accused presents sufficient evidence to create doubt regarding the existence of the debt.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complaint filed without proper authorization and the failure to include the partnership firm as a co-accused renders the complaint not maint....
The court established that the dishonour of a cheque under Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act constitutes an offence, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate that the cheque was not issued f....
The statutory presumption under Section 118 and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises once the signatures on the cheque are admitted, and it is rebuttable. However, the burden to rebut....
The provision of clear documentation in loan transactions is essential for recovery, and the burden of proof lies with the debtor to demonstrate repayment.
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
