Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
GUJARAT AMBUJA CEMENTS LTD – Appellant
Versus
SHREE LAKSHMI VENKATESH CARGO MOVERS AND CONSULTANTS – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner appeals against acquittal of respondent. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments by appellant about legal liability and debt. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. respondent's arguments on cheque issuance. (Para 14 , 16) |
| 4. contradictions in authorization and debt knowledge. (Para 15 , 18) |
| 5. court's interpretation of presumption under ni act. (Para 30 , 31) |
JUDGMENT :
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.
1. By way of the present leave petitions filed under section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 ("Cr.P.C."), the petitioner impugns judgment dated 21.09.2022 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, whereby the respondent has been acquitted of the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act") in criminal complaints bearing CC No. 2477/2017 and CC No. 2479/2017.
2. Delay in filing the leave petitions was condoned and notice on CRL.L.P. No.166/2023 and CRL.L.P. No.241/2023 was issued 28.03.2023 and 08.05.2023 respectively, consequent whereupon replies dated 25.01.2024 have been filed by the respondent.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, leave to appeal is granted and the matters are taken-up as criminal appeals for final
The presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque shifts the burden to the accused to prove that a cheque was not issued for a debt, which is central to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act....
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Presumption under Section 139 NI Act shifts burden to accused to rebut by probable defence; trial court erred in requiring complainant to prove debt, rendering acquittal perverse in appeal.
The presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act is a presumption of law, as distinguished from the presumption of facts. Presumptions are rules of evidence and do not conflict with the presumption of i....
A presumption of debt exists under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which the accused failed to rebut, affirming liability for dishonored cheques.
The presumption of a cheque being issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 N.I.A. and the significance of a security cheque in commercial transactions were central to the c....
Signature admission on cheque raises presumption of debt under NI Act; accused must rebut by preponderance even if blank security cheque; revisional jurisdiction limited, upholds concurrent findings ....
A cheque issued as security does not constitute a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presumption of liability can be rebutted by presenting credible....
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act mandates that a cheque is presumed to be issued for discharge of a debt unless the accused proves otherwise.
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
