Skip to main content

NI Act: Burden of proof upon accused if signature on cheque is admitted

In CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 198 OF 2017, Amol @ Jolly Shrichand Kungwani,  vs The State of Maharashtra, while appealing before the High Court of Bombay, the accused submitted that evidence of complainant shows that he is doing money lending business. He has not produced any accounts book to show the loan transaction. Learned trial Court has wrongly recorded its finding that accused has not discharged his burden in respect of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore the complainant has submitted that the complainant has proved that cheque was issued by the accused.

The High Court referring to judgments in  K. Bhaskaran Vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan and anr.,  Shanaz D'Souza Vs. Sheikh Ameer Saheeb and anr., Mahesh Chandaikar Vs. Dattaram S/o Tato Chandaikar and anr. and Nitin s/o Bapurao Mankar Vs. Vyankatesh Housing Agency, Nagpur. decided that the burden is to be discharged by the accused and not by the complainant.  There is no dispute about the signature on the bounced cheque. The complainant has proved that he had given Rs. 50,000/­ to the accused. The complainant also proved the acknowledgment in respect of receipt of Rs. 50,000/­. The acknowledgment on the letterhead of the accused is proved on record. Cheque was dishonoured. Complainant issued notice but said notice was not claimed by the accused. Necessary requirement is proved by the complainant. There is no merit in the revision, hence, it is liable to be dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more