Back
R. SUBRAMANIAN, R. SAKTHIVEL
M. Balaji – Appellant
Versus
Perim Janardhana Rao – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(R. Subramanian, J.)
(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Amended Letters Patent of 1865 and Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules, against the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2020 passed in C.S.No.941 of 2010.)
Challenge in this appeal is to the dismissal of the suit in C.S.No.941 of 2010.
2. The plaintiff in the said suit is the appellant. The plaintiff sued for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,21,66,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.79,00,000/- which according to the plaintiff is due and payable by the 1st defendant in the following circumstances.
3. The plaintiff has been doing real estate business, since 2002 and he had invested monies and entered into agreements of sale for properties in and around Bangalore. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant approached him expressing an interest in purchasing properties in Bangalore as an investment proposition. The plaintiff, being a real estate trader had showed certain lands to the 1st defendant, in fact, the 1st defendant purchased 50% of the share in 3 acres of land in Giddanahalli Village of Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant had
An agent's acknowledgment of debt is valid if the principal does not repudiate it within a reasonable time, establishing implied authority, and a dishonoured cheque can signify an enforceable debt.
The presumption of cheque issuance for debt under Section 139 can be rebutted, requiring the complainant to prove the existence of a legal enforceable debt for a successful prosecution under Section ....
The presumption in favor of the cheque holder established under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused through a probable defense, and the prosecution must prove the existence ....
The burden of proof on the accused to raise a probable defense and the standard of proof for rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act can be rebutted by adducing evidence which is to be appreciated on the foundation of the principles of preponderance of probability.
A cheque issued as security does not constitute a legally enforceable debt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the presumption of liability can be rebutted by presenting credible....
The court determined that under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption that a cheque was issued to discharge a debt is rebuttable, placing the burden on the accused t....
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 in favor of the holder of a cheque shifts the burden to the accused to prove that a cheque was not issued for a debt, which is central to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act....
A drawer of a cheque is presumed liable unless they provide evidence to rebut the presumption of issuance for debt repayment, established under Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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
