Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO
Prakash Pandurang Shinde – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complainant filed a complaint (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicants argue misreading of evidence (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. respondent argues proper judgment (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. evidence not maintained (Para 8) |
| 5. presumption rebutted (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. application dismissed (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER :
1.1 The parties are hereinafter referred to as “the complainant” and “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2.1 The complainant filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Act, mainly contending that the accused had taken a loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the applicant on 19.11.2010 for business purposes at the rate of 1% interest and an agreement was executed and the accused had issued cheque No.515618 for the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- dated 12.01.2017 from his account with Bank of Baroda, City Light Branch, Surat. The complainant deposited the cheque in his bank and the cheque was dishonored and the reason mentioned in the return memo dated 17.01.2017 was “Account Closed”. The complainant sent the statutory demand notice to the accused on 15.02.2017 and no payment was made and hence the complainant filed a criminal
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused must raise a probable defense to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish a probable defense against the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory, placing the burden on the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defence.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act establishes that a cheque is issued for a legally enforceable debt, placing the burden on the accused to rebut this presumption with a probable defense....
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, requiring only a probable defense from the accused, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The presumption of liability under the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to provide a probable defense.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; the complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt to succeed in a claim under Section 138.
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
