Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Search > Phrase: negotiable instruments act 1881 section 139 > Court: supreme > Page 1 of about 3,353 results (0.056 seconds)

Jul 23 2013 (SC)

C.Keshavamurthy Vs. H.K.Abdul Zabbar

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... of the judgment rendered by a three- judge bench in rangappa vs. sri mohan, reported in [2010(11)scc 441].. the judgment clearly held that the presumption under section 139 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, includes the presumption of the existence at a legally enforceable debt or liability. that presumption is required to be honoured, and if it is not so done, the ..... bounced, the appellant filed a complaint bearing no.2857 of 2003, in the court of judicial magistrate, first class-ii, davangere, in the state of karnataka, under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881. the case of the appellant is that since these cheques were dishonoured, an appropriate order under the law was necessary. 5 the defence of the respondent was that ..... raised an acceptable defence. he therefore, allowed the revision and set aside the judgment rendered by the courts below. the accused respondent was acquitted of the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1888, and the amount deposited in court was directed to be refunded. 8 being aggrieved by the judgment of the high court dated 8th december, 2008, the ..... by the learned jmfc-ii court, davangere, was confirmed, but the sentence was modified by him as follows: the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under section 138 of the negotiable instrument act shall undergo simple imprisonment three months and pay fine of rs.5,000/-. in default to pay such fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jul 24 1998 (SC)

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Narender and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : JT1998(9)SC411; (1999)1SCC113

orderm.k. mukherjee, j.1. leave granted in all the petitions.2. in view of the express provision of section 139 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, a presumption must be drawn that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge of any debit or other liability unless the contrary is proved. therefore, the high court was not justified in entertaining and accepting the plea of the accused-respondent at the initial stage of the proceedings and quashing the complaints filed by the appellant. we, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the high court and direct the trial court to proceed with the complaints in accordance with law.

Tag this Judgment!
Oct 23 2008 (SC)

S.L. Construction and anr. Vs. Alapati Srinivasa Rao and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2009SC1538; 2009(2)MhLJ971(SC); 2009(1)MPHT465; 2008(15)SCALE308; (2009)1SCC500:2009AIRSCW1044

..... of the code of criminal procedure codecriminal procedure codecriminal procedure code, 1973 praying for quashing the complaint proceedings under section 138 and section 142 of the negotiable instrument act before the iv additional munsif magistrate,guntur taking cognizance against them under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, was dismissed.2. the factual matrix involved herein is not in dispute.3. appellants had entered into some business transactions in ..... made by the drawer, with adequate safeguards to prevent harassment of honest drawers.'17. it is in the aforementioned backdrop we may notice the provisions of sections 138, 139 and 142 of the said act:138. dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account - where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him ..... holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.explanation: - for the purposes of this section, ' debt or other liability' means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.139. presumption in favour of holder- it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the ..... cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138, for the discharge, in while or in part, of any debt or other liability.142. .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jan 11 2008 (SC)

Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2008SC1325; 2008(1)ALD(Cri)485; 2008(2)ALT(Cri)170; 2008(5)BomCR470; [2008]141CompCas665(SC); 2008CriLJ1172; 2008(1)CTC433; JT2008(1)SC485; 2008(1)KLT425(SC); 2008AIRSCW738; AIR2008SC1325; 2008(4)SCC54; (2008)2SCC(Cri)166; 2008CriLJ1172; 2008(1)KLT425(SC); 2008(1)Crimes227; 2008(1)AICLR834; 2008(1)SCALE421; 2008(1)LH(SC)631; 2008(6)KLJ538; 2008(2)AIRKarR219; (2008)4SCC54

..... as also gravity thereof may be taken into consideration. the courts must be on guard to see that merely on the application of presumption as contemplated under section 139 of the negotiable instruments act, the same may not lead to injustice or mistaken conviction. it is for the aforementioned reasons that we have taken into consideration the decisions operating in the ..... judge, the sessions court as also the high court committed a serious illegality insofar as it misread and misapplied the provisions of section 139 of the negotiable instruments act (for short 'the act').it was contended that the procedural requirements of section 138 are:(i) there is a legally enforceable debt.(ii) the drawer of the cheque issued the cheque to satisfy part ..... to order or to bearer'.section 138 of the act has three ingredients, viz.:(i) that there is a legally enforceable debt;(ii) ..... or deposit so taken or accepted. (2) any penalty imposable under sub-section (1) shall be imposed by the joint commissioner. 20. indisputably, a mandatory presumption is required to be raised in terms of section 118(b) and section 139 of the act. section 13(1) of the act defines 'negotiable instrument' to mean 'a promissory note, bill of exchange or cheque payable either .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 07 2010 (SC)

Rangappa Vs. Sri Mohan

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2010SC1898

..... judgment1. leave granted.2. in the present case, the trial court had acquitted the appellant-accused in a case related to the dishonour of a cheque under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 [hereinafter `act']. this finding of acquittal had been made by the addl. jmfc at ranebennur, karnataka in criminal case no. 993/2001, by way of a judgment dated ..... rebuttable presumption under section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. however, it must be remembered ..... be no doubt that there is an initial presumption which favours the complainant. section 139 of the act is an example of a reverse onus clause that has been included in furtherance of the legislative objective of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. while section 138 of the act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonour of cheques, the ..... he accepts and admits the signatures on the said cheque, then initial presumption as contemplated under section 139 of the negotiable instruments act has to be raised by the court in favour of the complainant. the presumption referred to in section 139 of the n.i. act is a mandatory presumption and not a general presumption, but the accused is entitled to rebut .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 03 2002 (SC)

P.K. Manmadhan Kartha Vs. Sanjeev Raj and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : III(2004)BC166; [2004]120CompCas282(SC); JT2002(6)SC31; (2002)7SCC150; 2002(4)WLN772; 2002(5)WLN721

..... of kerala at ernakulam in criminal revision petition no. 1071 of 1999 dated january 11, 2001.3. the complainant is the appellant. the gravamen of the complaint filed under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 relates to dishonouring of thecheque - exhibit p-1 said to have been issued by respondent no. 1 in favour of the appellant. after trial the learned judicial first ..... undergo simple imprisonment for three months. the order further says that if the fine amount is realised, the entire amount will be given to pw1 by way of compensation under section 357cr.p.c. the appellate court confirmed his conviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the rising of the court. however, in the revision filed by him in the ..... court.4. having perused the order of the high court under challenge we are of the view that the above factors do not rebut the statutory presumptions under sections 139 and 118 of the said act so as to revise the order, set aside the conviction and sentence. in this view of the matter we are unable to sustain the order under challenge .....

Tag this Judgment!
Oct 09 2003 (SC)

K.R. Indira Vs. Dr. G. Adinarayana

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2003SC4689; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)31; III(2005)BC384(SC); [2003]117CompCas407(SC); 2004CriLJ5; 2003(4)CTC252; JT2003(8)SC71; 2003(3)KLT1042(SC); 2003(4)MhLj1081; 2003MPLJ480(SC

..... arijit pasayat, j.1. an interesting question in the background of clause (b) of the proviso to section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (in short the 'act') arises in these appeals.2. filtering out unnecessary details the background facts are as follows : appellant-dr. k.g. ramachandra gupta (in ..... cheque amount, the non-compliance with such a demand only being the incriminating circumstance which expose the drawer for being proceeded against under section 138 of the act. that being the position, the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the trial court and the high court do not call for interference in ..... that common notice was not in accordance with law and the essential ingredients to bring in application of clause (b) of proviso to section 138 of the act were not there. it was held that when separate cheques were allegedly issued, complainants were different and related to allegedly different loan transactions, ..... is whether the notice in question purportedly issued under clause (b) of proviso to section 138 of the act was valid or not. section 139 of the act has also relevance and needs reference. we extract below sections 138 and 139 of the act:'138- dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc. of funds in the account- where ..... as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within 15 days of the receipt of the said notice. 139- presumption in favour of holder-it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of .....

Tag this Judgment!
Feb 20 2007 (SC)

Kamala S. Vs. Vidyadharan M.J. and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : II(2007)BC463(SC); 2007(2)CTC648; (2008)1GLR423(SC); [2008(1)JCR229(SC)]; JT2007(3)SC565; 2007(3)SCALE235; (2007)5SCC264

..... .b. sinha, j.1. leave granted.2. appellant herein was charged with commission of an offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (for short, 'the act') on the premise that a cheque issued by her on 05.09.1997 for a sum of rs. 1 lakh drawn in favour of the respondent herein, when presented, was ..... the appellant herein was true, she has failed to offer any explanation as to why the cheque had to be issued.10. the act contains provisions raising presumption as regards the negotiable instruments under section 118(a) of the act as also under section 139 thereof. the said presumptions are rebuttable ones. whether presumption stood rebutted or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each ..... herein there against, the high court, however, reversed the said finding, opining that the appellant had not been able to discharge the burden of proof laid down under sections 138 and 139 of the act, which read as under:138. dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account.--where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by ..... on behalf of the complainant could be relied upon.11. this court clearly laid down the law that standard of proof in discharge of the burden in terms of section 139 of the act being of preponderance of a probability, the inference therefore can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record but also from the reference to the circumstances upon .....

Tag this Judgment!
Nov 17 2008 (SC)

P. Venugopal Vs. Madan P. Sarathi

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2009SC568; 2009(1)KarLJ569; (2009)1SCC492:2008AIRSCW7702:2008(6)LHSC4260

..... was not available.4. upon service of notice upon the respondent, a criminal complaint was filed. by an order dated 20th november, 2002, cognisance of the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881, was taken by the learned magistrate.5. before the learned trial judge, the parties examined themselves. one of the contentions raised by the appellant was that there did not ..... be, to the holder in due course of the cheque within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice,17. the act raised two presumptions/ one contained in section 118 of the act and other in section 139 thereof. section 118(a) reads as under:118. presumption as to negotiable instruments.- until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made:(a) of consideration.- that every ..... acceptor thereof by means of an offence or fraud, or for unlawful consideration, the burden of proving that the holder is a holder in due course lies upon him.section 139 of the act reads;139. presumption in favour of holder.- it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to .....

Tag this Judgment!
Dec 16 2008 (SC)

Kumar Exports Vs. Sharma Carpets

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2009SC1518; 2009(1)BomCR624; (2009)2GLR1240(SC); JT2009(1)SC20; 2009(1)KLT197(SC); 2009(4)MhLJ23(SC); 2009(I)OLR(SC)460; RLW2009(4)SC2981; 2008(16)SCALE342; (2009)2SCC51:2009AIRSCW1018:2009(1)LHSC428

..... 2003, passed by the learned judicial magistrate i class, karnal, in criminal complaint no. 178 of 2001, acquitting the appellant under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (`the act' for short), is set aside and after convicting the appellant under section 138 of the act the matter is remitted to the learned magistrate to pass appropriate order of sentence.3. jai bhagwan sharma, proprietor of m ..... of any debt or liability. applying the definition of the word `proved' in section 3 of the evidence act to the provisions of sections 118 and 139 of the act, it becomes evident that in a trial under section 138 of the act a presumption will have to be made that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and that it was executed for discharge of ..... categories of presumptions ceases and the fact is presumed, unless and until it is disproved.10. section 118 of the act inter alia directs that it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. section 139 of the act stipulates that unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed, that the holder of the ..... of 2004 in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh. the learned single judge, who heard the appeal, was of the opinion that in terms of section 139 of the act there was a presumption that the cheques received by the respondent were for the discharge of a debt or liability incurred by the appellant that execution of cheques was .....

Tag this Judgment!
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //