Back
MANISH PITALE
Santosh Kumar Kaddapa More – Appellant
Versus
Gokul Urban Co-op. Society – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manish Pitale, J. - Heard Mr. Ganesh Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. A.D. Bhobe, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent no. 1-Bank.
2. By the present Revision Application, the Applicant (original Accused), has approached this Court challenging concurrent orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Margao, and the Sessions Court, Margao. This is a matter arising out of a complaint filed by the Respondent-Bank under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (said Act, for short). The Magistrate has convicted the Applicant for offence under the said provisions and imposed a sentence upon him to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and to pay compensation of Rs.3,65,000.00 to Respondent-Bank. It is undisputed that the cheque amount was Rs.3,60,910.00.
3. It was the case of the Respondent-Bank, the original Complainant, that the Applicant had approached the said Respondent for a loan of an amount of Rs.6,00,000.00. Since the Applicant was not a member of the Respondent-bank, which is an Urban Co-operative Society, the said fact was also taken into consideration while processing the request of the Applicant for grant of loan.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the requirement to rebut such presumption in c....
The main legal point established is the enforceability of a security cheque and the burden on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption in favor of the complainant under Section 138 and 142 of t....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of rebutting the statutory presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the significance of providi....
The High Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts unless there is a clear indication of perversity or jurisdictional error.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the dishonor of a cheque due to insufficient funds, the presumption of the cheque being issued against a debt, and the ad....
Revisional jurisdiction cannot disturb concurrent findings in the absence of perversity; courts should uphold conviction for cheque dishonor.
The court upheld conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing the necessity of sufficient rebuttal from the accused.
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
