Back
R. SUBRAMANIAN, N. SENTHILKUMAR
T. Mohan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
R. Asok Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
The unsuccessful defendant in O.S. No.213 of 2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Erode (for brevity “the Trial Court”), is the appellant herein. Challenge is to the decree for money granted in the said suit which was predicated on a dishonoured cheque.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be adverted to as per their rank before the Trial Court.
3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.23 lakhs from him on 04.11.2012 and issued a post-dated cheque dated 05.12.2012. The cheque that was presented for payment by the plaintiff was dishonoured on 27.12.2012. The plaintiff issued a notice on 04.01.2013 seeking repayment, and the defendant, having received the notice, did not send any reply. The defendant agreed to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of borrowal and the plaintiff restricted the claim to 9% per annum from the date of the suit. On the basis of dishonour of the cheque, a criminal case in S.T.C. No.459 of 2013 was also launched by the plaintiff before the Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Erode, which was dismissed and on appeal by the plaintiff, there was conviction, which is challenged by the
The presumption of consideration under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof can shift to the plaintiff if the defendant presents sufficient evidence to....
Dishonour of cheque – Whereas prosecution must prove guilt of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt, standard of proof so as to prove a defence on part of accused is preponderance of probabilities.
While dealing with question of presumption available under Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act presumably for reason that there is no scope for any such legal proposition especially when it is ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the rebuttable nature of the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the burden of p....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defe....
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 of consideration under the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused to provide evidence against the claim of 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
