Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR
S.Shankar – Appellant
Versus
S.Parveen Banu – Respondent
JUDGMENT
The appellant/complainant had filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent in C.C.No.61 of 2018. The trial Court by judgment dated 11.09.2020, dismissed the complaint discharging the respondent, against which, the present appeal is filed.
2.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant and respondent are neighbours, known to each other and they had a good relationship. For the urgent needs, the respondent requested for hand loan and the appellant had given hand loan of Rs.25,00,000/- during January, 2016 and the respondent promised to repay the loan amount within two years. In discharge of the said liability, the respondent gave a cheque bearing No.140221 dated 04.12.2017 during November, 2017. Thereafter the cheque was presented on 19.12.2017, which was returned for the reason 'Funds Insufficient'. Following the same, statutory notice/Ex.P3 issued on 26.12.2017. The respondent received the notice and the acknowledgement card dated 02.01.2018 marked as Ex.P4.
3.The appellant to prove his financial capability has filed Income Tax returns/Ex.P5. The copy of the sale deed document dated 25.04.2018 marke
The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act does not apply when the complainant fails to provide sufficient details of the loan transaction.
The statutory presumption in favor of cheque validity under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted if the accused provides credible evidence of prior repayment or discharge of the obligation.
Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by the accused, shifting the burden back to the complainant when adequate evidence is presented.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies strongly in favor of the complainant, and the accused must provide substantive evidence to rebut it for a successful defens....
Rebuttable presumption under Section 139 NI Act displaced by accused probabilising defence via cross-examination on complainant's wherewithal.
Presumption of legally enforceable debt arises upon admission of cheque by the accused; failure to rebut results in liability for cheque dishonor.
The court established that once a cheque is issued and signed, a legal presumption exists regarding its use for a valid debt, shifting the burden of proof to the accused to deny its validity.
Court reaffirmed that in cheque dishonor cases, the appellant must prove the cheque's issuance arises from a legitimate debt obligation, especially when prior agreements exist contradicting claimed t....
The burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt lies on the complainant, and the accused has the right to establish a probable defense based on the complainant's lack of financial capacity.
The issuance of a negotiable instrument establishes a presumption of liability, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove the debt, as established by Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. 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
