Back
PANKAJ JAIN
Ashok Kumar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
C. P. Wholesale India Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Pankaj Jain, J. (Oral)
Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. impugning summoning order dated 21.10.2021 and setting aside order dated 31.01.2024 passed by JMFC, Gurugram in complaint case No.15227 of 2020 dated 09.07.2020 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1881 Act').
2. The respondent filed complaint under Section 138 of the 1881 Act in which the petitioner has been summoned to face summary trial vide order dated 21.10.2021. Further in compliance of Section 143-A interim compensation has been awarded against the petitioner and he has been ordered to deposit 20% of the cheque amount.
3. Counsel appearing for the petitioner while assailing the summoning order as well as complaint submits that so far as statutory presumption as provided under Sections 118 and 139 of the 1881 Act is concerned, that is not attached to legally enforceable debt. He submits that the complainant has merely relied upon ledger account to impress upon the Trial Court that there is a legally enforceable debt recoverable from the petitioner. The same is not sufficient. It has been contended that in the absence of there being
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and must be addressed during trial, with the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 48....
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and must be established during trial; the High Court cannot quash proceedings based on ....
The power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be exercised to prevent the abuse of process or secure the ends of justice. The Court can quash the F.I.R. if the allegations do not constitute an offence o....
The burden to prove that a cheque was not issued in discharge of any debt or liability lies on the issuer during the trial, and the presumption in favor of the holder of the cheque can be rebutted by....
(1) Dishonour of cheques – Legal presumption of cheque having been issued in discharge of liability must also receive due weightage.(2) To non-suit complainant, at the stage of summoning order, when ....
The court reiterated that issues around cheque liability under Section 138 NI Act must be decided at trial, underscoring the necessity for allegations in complaints to be accepted as true at the quas....
A PRESUMPTION THAT A CHEQUE PERTAINS TO A LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE DEBT OR LIABILITY ARISES WHEN THE SIGNATURE ON THE CHEQUE IS ADMITTED, BUT THIS PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON....
(1) Dishonour of cheque – Proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act are quasi-criminal in nature and principles which apply to acquittal in other criminal cases are not applicable in cases instituted....
The issuance of a cheque implies liability under the NI Act, and courts should not quash complaints based on disputed facts without trial.
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
