Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
R.K.PATTANAIK
Bhadrakali Foods Pvt. Ltd., Bhadrak – Appellant
Versus
Astasambhu Traders, Jagatsinghpur – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case and complaint details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding burden of proof and evidence. (Para 4 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court's view on procedural aspects and evidentiary standards. (Para 9 , 10 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. discussion of case laws impacting presumption of debt in ni act. (Para 11 , 12 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. final order and dismissal of revision. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
R.K. PATTANAIK, J.
1. Instant Revision under Section 438 read with Section 442 BNSS is at the behest of the petitioner questioning the legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the impugned judgment dated 17th September, 2024 as at Annexure-1 passed in connection with Criminal Appeal No.45 of 2023 by learned Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur, confirming the order of conviction and sentence directed against her in 1CC Case No.117 of 2018 (T.R. No.139 of 2021) vide Annexure-2 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur on the grounds inter alia that the same are legally untenable, hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside.
2. In fact, the opposite party filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the petitioner pleading therein that the latter deals wi
In dishonored cheque cases under the N.I. Act, the presumption of debt arises upon dishonor, requiring the accused to rebut the presumption with credible evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 NI Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption of discharge of debt or liabili....
The drawer of a cheque under Section 138 of the N.I. Act bears the burden to rebut the presumption of liability; failure to do so can result in conviction for cheque dishonour.
The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding the issuance of a cheque for a legally enforceable debt is significant; an accused must substantiate any rebuttal with cr....
Admission of cheque triggers presumption of debt under NI Act Sections 118(a), 139; security cheques attract Section 138 if liability exists; rebuttal by preponderance needed, not mere denial; revisi....
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....
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....
Signature admission on cheque raises presumption of debt under NI Act; accused must rebut by preponderance even if blank security cheque; revisional jurisdiction limited, upholds concurrent findings ....
Presumption under NI Act S.139 arises on cheque issuance admission; rebuttable by preponderance via evidence, not S.313 statement. Security cheques liable if debt unpaid; 'account closed' dishonour a....
The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act can be upheld, and the defense of a lost cheque must be substantiated with evidence to rebut the presumption.
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
