Back
DEEPAK GUPTA
Suresh Bala – Appellant
Versus
Ram Diya – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Mr. Deepak Gupta, J.
Defendants are in this Regular Second Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Courts below.
2.1. As per plaintiff (respondent herein), Jagdish Singh (since deceased- the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants - appellants herein) had borrowed an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- from him on 24.04.2015 and issued a cheque No.33000963 dated 24.05.2015 for an amount of Rs. 5,25,000/- drawn on Union Bank of India, Branch Jind from his account. On presentation, the cheque was dishonored for insufficient funds. After making statutory compliances, plaintiff filed complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [for short ‘the NI Act’] but on account of death of drawer of the cheque namely Jagdish Singh, the proceedings stood dropped. Thereafter, plaintiff approached the defendants, who are the legal heirs of Jagdish Singh for making the payment, but they refused to do so. With these submissions plaintiff prayed for a decree of recovery of Rs. 6,35,250/- including the interest.
2.2. Defendants-appellants denied the claim. They not only denied borrowing of an amount by their predecessor-Jagdish Singh but further denied that said Jagdish Singh
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is in favor of the holder of the cheque and can only be rebutted by sufficient evidence.
The presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, but the burden lies on the accused to provide evidence to the contrary.
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 complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt to sustain a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
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.
Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the accused to present credible evidence to rebut the holder's claim of legal liability regarding the cheque issued.
The complainant must establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt for a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; failure to do so results in acquittal.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the rebuttable nature of the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, emphasizing the burden of p....
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
