Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.J.JAMADAR
Chetan Sunderji Bhanushali – Appellant
Versus
Hema Ramesh Chheda – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenges to process issuance in ni act complaints. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. court heard parties' submissions. (Para 7) |
| 3. cheques invalid post-bank merger, non-compliance sec 138(a). (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. presumptions apply; disputed facts for trial. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. uncontroverted loan transactions and cheque dishonour facts. (Para 18) |
| 6. presentation within cheque validity period required. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 7. post-merger invalid cheques no sec 138 liability. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. sec 138 object; dishonour reason presumption under sec 146. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 9. rebut presumption at trial; blank cheques valid. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. 'insufficient funds' requires trial adjudication. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 11. validity defence triable if 'insufficient funds' endorsement. (Para 40 , 41) |
| 12. applications dismissed; proceed to trial. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
N.J. JAMADAR, J.
1. By these applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code, 1973), the applicants take exception to the orders passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, in Criminal Revision Applications
Cheques post-bank merger returned 'Funds Insufficient' attract Section 146 presumption; validity expiry defence triable at trial, not quashable under Section 482 CrPC despite potential non-compliance....
A dishonored cheque primarily for insufficient funds establishes liability under Section 138, while secondary reasons like signature discrepancies are irrelevant unless intent to defraud is proven.
The presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies despite account seizure; the burden to disprove liability lies with the accused.
The court clarified that for criminal liability under Section 138, a cheque must be presented to the drawee bank within six months from its date.
A cheque returned with the endorsement 'account closed' constitutes dishonour under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the statutory presumption of liability under Section 139 applies unless rebutted b....
The dishonour of a cheque due to 'Account Closed' falls within the parameters of Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the presumption under Section 139 applies.
The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remains in favor of the holder unless the accused provides credible evidence to rebut it.
Presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act not rebutted by unsubstantiated security cheque claim; such cheques enforceable under Section 138 on dishonour for insufficient funds if liability undischarg....
Cheques issued in discharge of a lawful liability create a presumption of guilt under Section 138, which the accused must rebut to avoid conviction.
A mandatory presumption applies in dishonour cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring the accused to provide evidence to rebut the lawful liability for which a cheque was ....
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
