Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO
Ashish Bharatbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint filed under section 138 (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of cheque transactions (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. arguments by applicant's advocate (Para 5) |
| 4. arguments by respondent's advocate (Para 6) |
| 5. observations on presumption under section 139 (Para 7) |
| 6. observations on evidence and burden of proof (Para 8) |
| 7. court's conclusion on evidence (Para 9) |
| 8. application seeking leave to appeal dismissed (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
ORDER :
1.1 The respondent No 2 is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.
2.1 The applicant filed a complaint against the accused under Section 138 of the Act, as the accused had taken a friendly loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- since 2020 on different occasion for his personal need. All these transactions were entered into a notarized agreement in the form of promissory note on 04.06.2022. The accused issued three cheques of The Zoroastrian Co. Operative Bank Limited having account no. 104200100005606 by filing details and signature on it. The applicant deposited cheque No. 061956 for Rs. 3,00,000/- on 13.07.2022 in his account with State Bank of India, Adajan Branch, Surat and the same was
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 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 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 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 Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, requiring the applicant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, which was not demonstrated in this cas....
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.
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 a cheque being for discharge of a debt is rebuttable, and the applicant failed to prove the cheque represented a legally enforceable debt.
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
