Back
TIRTHANKAR GHOSH
Dharmendra Kumar Daga @ Dhramendra Kumar Daga – Appellant
Versus
Debdutta Sen – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 02.07.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court at Calcutta in C.S. No. 32819 of 2015 corresponding to TR No. 7626 of 2015 (CIS No. CS/26252 of 2015) under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, thereby acquitting the accused/respondent from the charges.
2. The complainant/appellant Dharmendra Kumar Daga alleges that the accused Debdutta Sen was known to him since long as they were involved in the same nature of business. The accused person demanded a sum of Rs. 7.50 Lakhs as accommodation loan for him for a short period of time to overcome his urgent needs and assured the complainant to repay the same within six months with interest. On such representation and assurances, in good faith the complainant arranged and gave a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/-(Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to the accused person by way of Cheque No. 000008 dated 03.11.2014 drawn on HDFC Bank, Stephan House Branch, Kolkata-700 001. For assuring the complainant of the accommodation loan, the accused person executed an agreement as Deed of Simple Mortgage on 03rd Novembe
The existence of alternative remedies does not negate the enforceability of a cheque issued for a loan, allowing the complainant to choose the remedy for recovery.
The acknowledgment note appended by the postman and the registered receipt of the post office were crucial in proving the service of notice, influencing the court's decision to hold the respondent gu....
The burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the issuance of the cheque in discharge of a legal debt, and the presumption can be rebutted by producing evidence to the contrary.
The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not favor the complainant when the evidence fails to establish that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable d....
(1) Dishonour of cheque – At stage of issuance of process, statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act cannot be dislodged in a summary manner merely by contending that cheque issued was not ....
The burden of proof, legal presumptions, and the accused's admission of debt in the issuance of the cheque are crucial in determining liability under the Negotiable Instrument Act.
A legally enforceable debt is essential for liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; cancellation of the underlying contract negates such liability.
Accused failed to rebut the presumption of debt under Section 139, leading to acquittal being upheld despite dishonoured cheques. Evidence must sufficiently support claims of payment to avoid prosecu....
The issuance of a cheque signifies a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, and the burden to prove otherwise lies with the accused, not the complainant.
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
