Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANIL B.KATTI
Pradeep Kumar H.M., S/o H. Manjunath – Appellant
Versus
S. Ravikumar S/o H. Sharanappa – Respondent
ORDER
Revision petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by the judgment of first Appellate Court on the file of 1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga in Crl.A.No.20/2017 dated 03.05.2017 by confirming the judgment of trial Court on the file of 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga in C.C.No.134/2015 dated 07.12.2016, preferred this revision petition.
2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Heard the arguments on both sides.
4. After hearing the arguments on both sides and on perusal of trial Court records, so also the judgments of both Courts below, the following points arise for consideration:
1) Whether the impugned judgment under revision petition passed by the first Appellate Court in confirming the judgment of Trial Court for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is perverse, capricious and legally not sustainable?
2) Whether the interference of this Court is required?
5. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by complainant, it would go to show that complainant and accused are the residents of same village and they are friends, as suc
The statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act remains unless the accused provides adequate rebuttal evidence, which was not done in this case.
The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act favor the complainant once the issuance of the cheque is established, placing the burden on the accused to provide credible evide....
The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act places the burden on the accused to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt once the issuance and si....
When a complainant discharges their initial burden under Sections 138 and 139 of N.I. Act, presumptions in their favor come into play, which can be rebutted by preponderance of probabilities.
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act shifts the burden to the accused to disprove the cheque's issuance for a legal liability, which was not s....
A cheque issued for a financial obligation creates a rebuttable presumption of debt under Sections 138 and 139 of the N.I. Act, which the accused failed to contradict.
The presumption of consideration under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies once a cheque's issuance is admitted, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut this presumptio....
Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act arise on implicit admission of cheque issuance via cross-examination; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial; revisional jurisdiction limi....
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
