Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home  Phrase:negotiable instruments act 1881 section 139  Court:supreme

Jul 09 2008

Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.

  • Decided on : 09-Jul-2008

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR2254; 2008AIRSCW5964; 2008(4)LH(SC)2896

..... held to be unconstitutional by the supreme court of mauritius. in abdul rashid khoyratty (supra), the privy council upheld the said view.77. dealing with the provisions of sections 118(b) and 139 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 in krishna janardhan bhat v. dattatraya g. hegde : 2008crilj1172 this court upon referring to hiten p. dalal v. bratindranath banerjee : 2001crilj4647 , opined:32. but, ..... seriousness 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 ..... ] 17. the presumption raised against the trader is a rebuttable one. reverse burden as also statutory presumptions can be raised in several statutes as, for example, the negotiable instruments act, prevention of corruption act, tada, etc. presumption is raised only when certain foundational facts are established by the prosecution. the accused in such an event would be entitled to show that he ..... evidence was not faulted. it was not done in the present case.139. pw-1 kulwant singh, inspector-customs, in his deposition, stated:i had told the accused that i asked the accused that his search be conducted under section 50 of the n.d.p.s. act before a gazetted officer or a magistrate. i did not mention this .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jul 23 2013

C.KESHAVAMURTHY Vs. H.K.ABDUL ZABBAR

  • Decided on : 23-Jul-2013

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

Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Narender and Ors.

  • Decided on : 24-Jul-1998

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!
Feb 20 2007

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

  • Decided on : 20-Feb-2007

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!
Oct 23 2008

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

  • Decided on : 23-Oct-2008

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 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 regard to ..... arrangements 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 ..... the 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. cognizance of .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 03 2002

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

  • Decided on : 03-May-2002

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!
Nov 19 2001

M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd. and Anr. ...

  • Decided on : 19-Nov-2001

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2002SC182,2002(1)ALD(Cri)585,2002(1)ALT(Cri)230,2002(1)AWC80(SC),IV(2005)BC59(SC),2002(1)BomCR218,[2002]108CompCas48(SC),(2002)1CompLJ58(SC),2002CriLJ266,2002(1

..... considerably impairs the maintainability.'15. in the case of maruti udyog ltd. v. narander reported in : (1999)1scc113 , this court has held that by virtue of section 139 of the negotiable instruments act, the court has to draw a presumption that the holder of the cheque received the cheque for discharge of a debt or liability until the contrary is proved. this ..... in the case of : 2001crilj4745 : 2001crilj4745 v. (sic) reported in : 2001crilj4745 : 2001crilj4745 , wherein again it has been held hat under section 139 of the negotiable instruments act the court has to presume, in a complaint under section 138, that the cheque had been issued of a debt or liability.17. there is therefore no requirement that the complainant must specifically allege in ..... or irregularity which could be cured subsequently. it is held that if the record does disclose any authorisation, then taking cognizance of the complaint was barred by section 142(a) of the negotiable instruments act. it has been held that senior manager (who had lodged the complaints) and the deputy general manager (who was substituted) had not been authorised by ..... be mentioned that respondents had also issued to the appellants, four other cheques. those cheques were also dishonoured when presented for payment. four other complaints, under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, had also been filed by the appellants. those four complaints had also been lodged by the same shri lakshman goel. in those four cases the respondents filed .....

Tag this Judgment!
Jan 11 2008

Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde

  • Decided on : 11-Jan-2008

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!
Jul 04 2006

M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala and Anr.

  • Decided on : 04-Jul-2006

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC3366; III(2006)BC433; [2006]132CompCas450(SC); (2006)6CompLJ39(SC); 2006CriLJ4607; 2006(3)CTC730; JT2006(6)SC72; 2006(3)KLT404(SC); 2006(5)MhLj676; 2006MPLJ97(SC);

..... time. a complaint petition was filed on 19.11.1992 by the second respondent herein against the appellant purported to be for commission of an offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act (for short 'the act'), on the following allegations:2. the second respondent had been carrying on business of stock and share brokers under the name and style of 'midhu and midhun ..... of events, the questions of law which had been raised before us will have to be considered. before, we advert to the said questions, we may notice the provisions of sections 118(a) and 139 of the act which read as under:118. presumptions as to negotiable instruments - until the contrary is proved, the following presumptions shall be made: (a) of consideration - that every ..... the supposition that it does not exist.17. applying the said definitions of 'proved' or 'disproved' to principle behind section 118(a) of the act, the court shall presume a negotiable instrument to be for consideration unless and until after considering the matter before it, it either believes that the consideration does not exist or considers the non-existence of the consideration .....

Tag this Judgment!
Mar 14 2001

Ashok Yeshwant Badave Vs. Surendra Madhavrao Nighojakar and Anr.

  • Decided on : 14-Mar-2001

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2001SC1315; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)668; 2001ALLMR(Cri)1028(SC); 2001(2)ALT(Cri)11; 2001CriLJ1674; JT2001(3)SC508; 2001(2)KLT28(SC); 2001(2)SCALE472; (2001)3SCC726; [2001]2SCR426

..... in revision refusing to interfere with the order passed by a chief judicial magistrate taking cognizance and issuing process against the appellant for the offence under section 138 of the negotiable instruments act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').3. surendra madhavrao nighojkar - respondent no. 1 filed a petition of complaint in the court of chief judicial magistrate, satara on 2.9.1996 for prosecution ..... , etc., the aforesaid provision became redundant and consequently by section 16 of the notaries act, 1952, sections 138 and 139 were repealed and thereby chapter xvii was abolished w.e.f. 14th february, 1956. however, chapter xvii has been re-introduced in the act by section 4 of the banking, public financial institutions and negotiable instruments laws (amendment) act, 1988 (act 66 of 1988) with effect from 1.4.1989 ..... the accounts'. this new chapter contains five sections, namely, sections 138 to 142 which are altogether different from old sections 138 and 139. the object of bringing section 138 by the aforesaid amending act on the statute appears to be to inculcate faith in the efficacy of banking operations and credibility in transacting business of negotiable instruments. despite civil remedy, section 138 intends to prevent dishonesty on the part .....

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