Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO, J
Bhadresh Mahendrabhai Manvawala – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the present application is filed (Para 1) |
| 2. the brief facts culled out (Para 2) |
| 3. being aggrieved and dissatisfied (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. learned advocate ms.mita panchal (Para 5) |
| 5. learned app bhargav pandya (Para 6) |
| 6. since this is an application (Para 7) |
| 7. in light of the above settled (Para 8) |
| 8. the learned trial court has (Para 9) |
| 9. consequently, the present application (Para 10 , 11) |
ORDER :
2. The brief facts culled out from the memo of the present application as well as the impugned judgment and order and paper book filed by the applicant are as under:
2.2 The accused was served with the summons and appeared before the learned Trial Court and his plea was recorded and the evidence of the applicant was taken on record. The applicant was examined as a witness and 05 documentary evidences were produced in support of the case and after the closing pursis at exhibit 33 was filed, the further statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he pleaded that the blank cheques were given as a security and the applicant has filed a false complaint and has failed to prove the case. The applicant has not produced any evidence to
The presumption of debt under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, requiring only a probable defense from the accused, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish a probable defense against the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the accused must raise a probable defense to contest the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the NI Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defence.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, requiring the applicant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, which was not demonstrated in this cas....
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden lies on the accused to raise a probable defence, which was successfully established in this case.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is mandatory, placing the burden on the accused to rebut the existence of a legally enforceable debt.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable; the complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt to succeed in a claim under Section 138.
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act establishes that a cheque is issued for a legally enforceable debt, placing the burden on the accused to rebut this presumption with a probable defense....
The presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the complainant to establish a prima facie case, after which the burden shifts to the accused to disprove claims. Insufficie....
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
