Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
Shajahan Muhammed S/o Muhammed Ismayil – Appellant
Versus
Durga Murali S/o Ramaswamy Redyar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
1. The defendant in a suit for the realisation of money is the appellant.
2. O.S.No.362 of 2011 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff alleging that he had advanced an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellant/defendant for business purposes on 07.10.2010, which the appellant agreed to repay within 5 months, besides issuing a cheque dated 25.02.2011 for Rs. 2,00,000/-, drawn on the Syndicate Bank, Alappuzha Branch. The cheque, on presentation, was dishonoured on 12.03.2011 for insufficient funds. A lawyer's notice was issued, to which the appellant replied, disputing the transaction and the liability, which led to the filing of the suit.
3. The appellant, apart from denying the plaint allegation of receipt of any amount from the respondent, specifically pleaded that he had not executed the cheque in question on 25.02.2011 as alleged and that the same was one among the cheque leaves handed over by him to his brother Rafeek as part of the financial dealings between them. The appellant's brother, Rafeek, who also had monetary transactions with the plaintiff, handed over those cheques to the plaintiff/respondent, misusing which the claim was founded.
4. The
A suit for recovery of money based on a negotiable instrument may be maintained despite the cheque being stale for criminal prosecution, provided the underlying transaction is proven; however, the pr....
The dishonour of cheques and the existence of a legally enforceable debt must be proved, and the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act can only be rebutted with strong evidence.
Presumption against the drawer of the cheque, dishonour of cheques due to closure of the account, and the petitioner's failure to rebut the presumption.
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.
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....
The presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused, leading to acquittal if the complainant fails to prove a legally enforceable debt.
Dishonour of cheque – When a cheque is drawn out and is relied upon by drawee, it will raise a presumption that it is drawn towards a consideration which is a legally recoverable amount.
There is a presumption under Section 139 of the N.I.Act that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability.
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
