Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
New Shilpi Jewellers through its Partner Pankaj Chauhan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision against upheld s.138 conviction for dishonoured cheque. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. trial proceedings and lower courts confirmed cheque liability offence. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. challenges: limitation, unregistered firm, no authorisation, ignored payments. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. revisional jurisdiction confined to patent errors or perversity. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. unregistered firm maintainable for s.138 ni act complaints. (Para 17 , 18) |
| 6. partner files s.138 complaint without specific authorisation. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 7. cheque admission triggers ss.118/139 ni act presumption. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. post-notice payments do not extinguish s.138 offence. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 9. evidence required to rebut ni act presumption. (Para 28 , 29) |
| 10. bank memo presumes cheque dishonour under s.146. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 11. s.142(b) limitation excludes notice service date. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 12. all s.138 ni act ingredients satisfied. (Para 35) |
| 13. deterrent sentence, compensation, default imprisonment upheld. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 14. revision dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed. (Para 42 , 43) |
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The present revision is direct
Revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity; unregistered firm competent for s138 NI Act complaint; ss118/139 presumptions arise on cheque admission, rebuttable by evidence; subsequent payments do ....
Admission of cheque signature raises presumption under NI Act ss.118(a),139 of debt discharge; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial. Revisional jurisdiction bars reappreciation absent pe....
Revisional jurisdiction limited; no reappreciation of evidence absent perversity. NI Act presumptions u/ss 118,139 arise on cheque admission; accused must rebut with evidence. No initial complainant ....
Revisional court upheld s138 NI Act conviction where accused admitted cheque but failed to rebut ss118/139 presumptions via evidence; limited interference absent perversity in concurrent findings; fi....
Section 139 NI Act presumption of liability rebuttable by probable defence on preponderance of probabilities; contradictory accused pleas and non-examination of witness fail rebuttal; revisional juri....
Admission of cheque issuance raises rebuttable presumption under Sections 118/139 NI Act of discharge of debt; security cheques attract Section 138 liability if debt subsists; accused must lead evide....
Admission of cheque signature triggers presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act of debt discharge; security cheques attract Section 138 liability on dishonour; accused must rebut with evidenc....
Admission of cheque signature raises presumption of debt under NI Act ss118(a),139; accused's lost cheque plea fails without bank report; revisional jurisdiction limited to perversity, upholding conc....
Presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 NI Act arise on implicit admission of cheque issuance via cross-examination; accused must rebut with evidence, not mere denial; revisional jurisdiction limi....
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
