Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE
Ramachandra Hunasikatti – Appellant
Versus
Niraj Kumar Ladsaria – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case and initial complaint details. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments surrounding the nature of the cheques. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. judicial perspective on the presumption of liability. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. decision against quashing based on factual disputes. (Para 10) |
| 5. conclusion and directive for expeditious trial. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
Both the revision applications arising out of the self same cause of action and involving identical parties shall be disposed of via this common judgment.
Background:-
1. One complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for short N.I. Act) was filed before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate invoking the provision of Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia (for short CrPC) alleging that the complainant namely Mr. Ramachandra Hunasikatti transferred his equity shares in M/s. M.M.C Technologies (P) Limited to the accused for a total consideration of Rs. 56,13,345/-. The accused allegedly paid Rs. 11,00,000/- initially by an account payee cheque and for the balance consideration of Rs. 45,13,345/- the accused on 24.09.2018 issued 4 post dated acco
The issuance of a cheque raises a statutory presumption of liability under the N.I. Act that can only be rebutted through evidence in a trial.
A cheque issued as security can be subjected to Section 138 liabilities; presumption under Section 139 requires the accused to establish a probable defence for avoidance of conviction.
A presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque exists under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, requiring the accused to rebut it with a probable defense.
Dishonoured cheque attracts presumption of lawful debt under NI Act unless rebutted by accused on preponderance of probabilities; failure justifies conviction even for security cheque with subsisting....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies, placing the burden of proof on the accused to establish a probable defence against dishonour of a cheque.
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is mandatory, and the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption with convincing evidence.
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.
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
