9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1322 - SC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - sufficient evidence having position to advance a loan or not - rebuttal of statutory presumption - HELD THAT - The High Court was not right in holding that the onus was not on the respondent to show that the debt was neither due nor payable. Referring the Sections of the N.I. Act, a three Judges Bench of this Court in MR. T. VASANTHAKUMAR VERSUS VIJAYAKUMARI 2015 (4) TMI 1238 - SUPREME COURT , where an earlier judgment of this Court in RANGAPPA VERSUS SRI MOHAN 2010 (5) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT was referred, which elucidating on the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, observes that this includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. However, the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act is rebuttable and it is open to the accused to raise a defence wherein the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability can be contested. The impugned judgment is set aside with an order of remit to the High Court, to decide the appeal on the basis that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Thereupon, the High Court will consider the evidence and the material on record to decide whether the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is established and made out. Appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to the judgment of the High Court dismissing the appeal. 2. Interpretation of Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Burden of proof in cases involving negotiable instruments. 4. Application of legal presumptions in favor of the holder of a cheque. 5. Rebuttable nature of presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. Analysis: The Supreme Court, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari, granted leave to appeal against the High Court's judgment. The High Court had dismissed the appellant's appeal, Jain P. Jose, against the trial court's judgment, citing the absence of evidence to establish a loan advance of Rs. 9 lakhs to the respondent. The High Court's decision was based on the appellant's admission that the entries in the cheque were not made by the respondent, leading to a lack of presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Supreme Court disagreed with this reasoning and ordered a remand. The Supreme Court highlighted the respondent's acceptance of his signature on the cheque and the notice issued by the respondent claiming a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs given by the appellant to the respondent's brother-in-law. The Court emphasized that the burden was on the respondent to prove that the debt was not due or payable, as per Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. Referring to previous judgments, the Court reiterated that the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque is rebuttable and that the accused must disprove the existence of a legally recoverable debt or liability. Citing various precedents, including "T. Vasanthakumar Vs. Vijaykumari" and "Kalamani Tex and Another vs. P. Balasubramanian," the Court emphasized the importance of the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The Court clarified that even a blank cheque signed by the accused would attract the presumption under Section 139 unless proven otherwise. In this case, the Court found that the trial court erred in not presuming the cheque as consideration for a legally enforceable debt, setting aside the High Court's judgment and remanding the matter for further consideration. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the High Court to reconsider the evidence in light of the appellant's entitlement to the benefit of presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act. The parties were instructed to appear before the High Court for further proceedings, emphasizing the importance of legal presumptions and the burden of proof in cases involving negotiable instruments.
|
