Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2006 (7) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2006 (7) TMI 576 - SC - Companies Law


  1. 2021 (2) TMI 505 - SC
  2. 2019 (11) TMI 550 - SC
  3. 2019 (4) TMI 660 - SC
  4. 2019 (3) TMI 769 - SC
  5. 2014 (9) TMI 1236 - SC
  6. 2013 (5) TMI 40 - SC
  7. 2012 (10) TMI 737 - SC
  8. 2008 (7) TMI 853 - SC
  9. 2008 (5) TMI 10 - SC
  10. 2008 (1) TMI 827 - SC
  11. 2007 (10) TMI 605 - SC
  12. 2007 (10) TMI 551 - SC
  13. 2007 (2) TMI 585 - SC
  14. 2024 (9) TMI 102 - HC
  15. 2024 (6) TMI 675 - HC
  16. 2024 (6) TMI 435 - HC
  17. 2024 (6) TMI 380 - HC
  18. 2024 (5) TMI 187 - HC
  19. 2024 (5) TMI 1431 - HC
  20. 2024 (5) TMI 1438 - HC
  21. 2024 (3) TMI 441 - HC
  22. 2024 (1) TMI 666 - HC
  23. 2023 (12) TMI 947 - HC
  24. 2023 (11) TMI 1120 - HC
  25. 2023 (9) TMI 1246 - HC
  26. 2023 (9) TMI 169 - HC
  27. 2023 (7) TMI 1232 - HC
  28. 2023 (6) TMI 840 - HC
  29. 2022 (11) TMI 854 - HC
  30. 2022 (11) TMI 493 - HC
  31. 2022 (10) TMI 4 - HC
  32. 2022 (9) TMI 1116 - HC
  33. 2022 (9) TMI 793 - HC
  34. 2022 (8) TMI 606 - HC
  35. 2022 (7) TMI 1114 - HC
  36. 2022 (7) TMI 973 - HC
  37. 2022 (6) TMI 853 - HC
  38. 2022 (5) TMI 305 - HC
  39. 2022 (6) TMI 487 - HC
  40. 2022 (5) TMI 69 - HC
  41. 2022 (4) TMI 1349 - HC
  42. 2022 (4) TMI 418 - HC
  43. 2022 (4) TMI 63 - HC
  44. 2022 (4) TMI 762 - HC
  45. 2022 (4) TMI 79 - HC
  46. 2022 (3) TMI 683 - HC
  47. 2022 (2) TMI 132 - HC
  48. 2022 (1) TMI 804 - HC
  49. 2022 (1) TMI 1285 - HC
  50. 2022 (1) TMI 1002 - HC
  51. 2021 (12) TMI 786 - HC
  52. 2021 (12) TMI 279 - HC
  53. 2021 (12) TMI 234 - HC
  54. 2022 (1) TMI 53 - HC
  55. 2021 (11) TMI 652 - HC
  56. 2021 (11) TMI 455 - HC
  57. 2021 (11) TMI 454 - HC
  58. 2021 (11) TMI 449 - HC
  59. 2021 (11) TMI 447 - HC
  60. 2021 (10) TMI 192 - HC
  61. 2021 (7) TMI 310 - HC
  62. 2021 (6) TMI 958 - HC
  63. 2021 (6) TMI 464 - HC
  64. 2021 (4) TMI 33 - HC
  65. 2021 (3) TMI 1135 - HC
  66. 2021 (2) TMI 151 - HC
  67. 2021 (1) TMI 855 - HC
  68. 2021 (1) TMI 306 - HC
  69. 2020 (9) TMI 593 - HC
  70. 2020 (6) TMI 9 - HC
  71. 2020 (4) TMI 412 - HC
  72. 2020 (9) TMI 108 - HC
  73. 2020 (5) TMI 340 - HC
  74. 2020 (1) TMI 747 - HC
  75. 2019 (12) TMI 386 - HC
  76. 2019 (6) TMI 749 - HC
  77. 2019 (1) TMI 447 - HC
  78. 2019 (1) TMI 514 - HC
  79. 2018 (11) TMI 1095 - HC
  80. 2018 (9) TMI 2106 - HC
  81. 2018 (8) TMI 2153 - HC
  82. 2018 (8) TMI 2048 - HC
  83. 2018 (8) TMI 738 - HC
  84. 2018 (8) TMI 1234 - HC
  85. 2018 (7) TMI 1540 - HC
  86. 2018 (7) TMI 2229 - HC
  87. 2018 (3) TMI 1907 - HC
  88. 2018 (1) TMI 1714 - HC
  89. 2018 (1) TMI 1556 - HC
  90. 2017 (8) TMI 1013 - HC
  91. 2017 (7) TMI 546 - HC
  92. 2017 (7) TMI 577 - HC
  93. 2017 (1) TMI 1702 - HC
  94. 2017 (1) TMI 1803 - HC
  95. 2016 (9) TMI 1653 - HC
  96. 2016 (6) TMI 726 - HC
  97. 2015 (10) TMI 2696 - HC
  98. 2015 (9) TMI 1721 - HC
  99. 2015 (12) TMI 1335 - HC
  100. 2015 (9) TMI 240 - HC
  101. 2015 (6) TMI 1274 - HC
  102. 2015 (5) TMI 1246 - HC
  103. 2015 (3) TMI 1321 - HC
  104. 2015 (2) TMI 1351 - HC
  105. 2015 (1) TMI 1365 - HC
  106. 2014 (11) TMI 1263 - HC
  107. 2014 (6) TMI 1074 - HC
  108. 2014 (5) TMI 1088 - HC
  109. 2013 (7) TMI 1163 - HC
  110. 2013 (5) TMI 1058 - HC
  111. 2013 (2) TMI 36 - HC
  112. 2013 (1) TMI 21 - HC
  113. 2012 (7) TMI 1165 - HC
  114. 2013 (2) TMI 28 - HC
  115. 2011 (2) TMI 250 - HC
  116. 2011 (1) TMI 315 - HC
  117. 2010 (8) TMI 1173 - HC
  118. 2010 (7) TMI 1204 - HC
  119. 2010 (2) TMI 1288 - HC
  120. 2007 (12) TMI 540 - HC
  121. 2007 (11) TMI 592 - HC
  122. 2007 (10) TMI 659 - HC
  123. 2007 (8) TMI 806 - HC
  124. 2006 (11) TMI 687 - HC
  125. 2017 (12) TMI 1824 - DSC
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the cheque issued by the Appellant.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
3. Burden of proof and presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act.
4. Admissibility and credibility of the books of accounts maintained by the Second Respondent.
5. Reversal of the appellate court's judgment by the High Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Cheque Issued by the Appellant:
The Second Respondent, a member of the Cochin Stock Exchange, accused the Appellant of issuing a cheque dated 17.8.1992, which was dishonored due to insufficient funds. The Appellant contended that the cheque was given as security and not for discharging any debt. The trial court found the Appellant guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the appellate court reversed this, finding the Appellant's explanation more probable. The High Court later reinstated the conviction, which was contested in this judgment.

2. Interpretation and Application of Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act:
The Appellant argued that the trial court and the High Court misconstrued Section 139, which presumes that the cheque was issued for discharging a debt unless proven otherwise. The High Court erred by requiring the Appellant to prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt, instead of merely raising a probable defense.

3. Burden of Proof and Presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act:
The court reiterated that the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are rebuttable. The Appellant only needed to raise a probable defense to shift the burden back to the prosecution. The appellate court found that the Appellant had successfully rebutted the presumption by demonstrating discrepancies in the Second Respondent's accounts and the lack of proper documentation.

4. Admissibility and Credibility of the Books of Accounts Maintained by the Second Respondent:
The Second Respondent's failure to produce original books of accounts and maintain statutory records as required by the Cochin Stock Exchange's bye-laws significantly weakened his case. The appellate court noted discrepancies amounting to Rs. 14,63,555/- between the Second Respondent's accounts and those maintained by the Stock Exchange, undermining the credibility of the claim against the Appellant.

5. Reversal of the Appellate Court's Judgment by the High Court:
The High Court's decision to reverse the appellate court's judgment was based on an incorrect interpretation of the burden of proof and the presumption under Section 139. The High Court failed to address the discrepancies in the Second Respondent's accounts and erroneously concluded that the Appellant had acknowledged the correctness of the statements of accounts. The Supreme Court found that the High Court committed a manifest error in reversing the appellate court's judgment, which had rightly acquitted the Appellant based on the evidence presented.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, reinstating the appellate court's decision to acquit the Appellant. The Appellant was discharged from the bail bonds, and the Second Respondent was ordered to bear the costs of the Appellant, including counsels' fees assessed at Rs. 10,000/-.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates