| Home |
Section 138, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Complaint - Quashing - Debt or liability - Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground that there is no debt or liability - At this stage Court cannot go into merits and/or come to a conclusion that there is no existing debt or liability. (M/s M.M.T.C.Ltd. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P.Ltd.) 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S.C.) = 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S.C.)
Section 138 - 'Debt or liability' - Pleading - There is no requirement that the complainant must allege in the complaint that there is a subsisting liability - The burden of proving that there was no existing debt or liability is on the respondents. (M/s M.M.T.C.Ltd. Vs M/s Medchl Chemicals & Pharma P.Ltd.) 2002(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (S.C.) : 2001(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 636 (S.C.) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0237
Section 138 - 'Debt or liability' - Presumption is that cheque was issued for discharge in whole or in part of a debt or liability - Accused can rebut the presumption by proving otherwise. (M/s Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs B.D.Aggarwal & Sons Ltd.) 2001(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 587 (P&H) : 2002 (1) ISJ (BANKING) 0344
Section 138 - Amount of loan due from accused - Issued 10 post dated cheques - Cheques dishonoured - One complaint in respect of all cheques is maintainable. (Anita Vs Anil K.Mehara) 1996(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 343 (P&H)
Section 138 - Cheques issued in discharge of a liability i.e. payment of monthly rentals - Cheques dishonoured for want of sufficient funds - Complaint cannot be thrown out on the ground that it is a civil dispute. (M/s Kusum Ingots Vs State of A.P.) 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 328 (A.P.) : 1999 (1) ALT (CRL.) 0152
Section 138 - Contract in pursuance of which cheque issued in dispute - That dispute to be settled by Civil Court quite different from criminal liability - Offence u/s 138 relates only to the dishonour of cheque and negligence to pay the amount of the cheque upon a subsequent statutory notice. (NEPC Micon Ltd. Vs Magma Leasing Ltd.) 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 459 (Calcutta) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (S.C.) 0218 : 1999 (1) BANKING CASES 0269 : 1999 (96) COMP. CASES 0822 : 1998 (2) CLT 0505
Section 138 - Debt or liability - Not necessary that it should be due from the drawer - Cheque can be issued for discharge of another man's debt or liability. (Alexander Vs Joseph Chacko) 1993 CIVIL COURT CASES 533 (Kerala) : 1994 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KERALA) 0784 : 1994 (1) CRIMES 0388
Section 138 - Liability to pay - Cheque issued by employee in favour of employer - Relations were of master and servant or employee and employer - No business or commercial or mercantile relations between the parties - No liability to pay - Complainant failed to prove the case to attract the provisions of Section 138. (Goa Plast Pvt.Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza) 1996(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 551 (Bom.) : 1997 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (BOMBAY) 0743 : 1996 (2) BANKING CASES 0658 : 1997 BJ 0023 : 1996 CRL. L.J. 2344 : 1996 (4) CCR 0816 : 1996 (4) ALLMR 0040
Section 138 - Loan taken by mother - Son issuing cheques in discharge of legal liability of his mother - Cheques dishonoured - Son becomes liable and amount is legally enforceable debt - Prima facie case against son is made out - No ground to quash the complaint. (G.N.Gurappa Reddy Vs M/s A.S.Finance and Investments) 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 556 (Kant.) : 1999 (2) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (KARNATAKA) 0026
Section 138 - Provision - Applicability - When it is a legally enforceable debt or liability then Section 138 applies and relationship of parties is not at all a factor germane to the proceeding. (Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza) 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S.C.) = 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S.C.) = 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S.C.)
Section 138 - Purchase of vehicle - Advance paid as per cheque - Cheque dishonoured - Vehicle not sold - Does not amount to commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Act as there is no debt or liability. (Joshi Topno alias Joshi Amrit Topno Vs The State of Bihar & Ors.) 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 648 (JHARKHAND)
Section 139 - "Unless contrary is proved" - To be rebutted by `proof' and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible - A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists - Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted. (Hiten P.Dalal Vs Bratindranath Banerjee) 2001(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 617 (S.C.)
Section 139 - Cheque issued - It is to be presumed that it is issued in discharge of a debt or other liability - This presumption can be rebutted by adducing evidence and the burden of proof is on the person who wants to rebut the presumption. (Goa Plast (P) Ltd. Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza) 2004(1) APEX COURT JUDGMENTS 273 (S.C.) = 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (S.C.) = 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 693 (S.C.)
Section 139 - Cheque issued on specific understanding that the same can be presented and encashed if the entire loan amount not otherwise paid before the date of cheque - Held, cheque was issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt/liability. (Thekkan & Co. Vs Anitha) 2004(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 13 (Kerala) = 2004(1) CRIMINAL COURT CASES 65 (Kerala)
Section 139 - Presumption is to be drawn that cheque was issued towards discharge of antecedent liability and it is for the accused to rebut the said presumption by adducing evidence to establish that he did not issue the cheque towards discharge of any antecedent liability. (Dr.K.G.Ramachandra Gupta Vs Dr.G.Adinarayana) 2000(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 577 (Kant.)
Section 139 - Presumption u/s 139 - Is rebuttable presumption - To rebut the presumption it is not necessary to lead evidence as the accused can rebut the presumption on the basis of the complaint as well as evidence led by the complainant himself. (Ramesh Ratilal Tanna Vs Gautam Jayantilal Nagarwala) 2002(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 10 (Bom.)
Section 139 - Provision gives rise to presumption of fact that the cheque was given in discharge of a debt or liability legally recoverable. (DSA Engineers (Bombay) Vs M/s U.E.M. India Pvt.Ltd.) 1999(SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 247 (Delhi) : 1996 - 99 (SUPP.) ISJ (BANKING) 0597 : 1999 (2) CHANDIGARH CRL. CASES 0093
Sections 138, 139 - Loan taken of Rs.30 lakhs and promissory note executed - Amount not paid within six months as per memorandum of understanding - On repeated demands accused issued a cheque towards discharge of loan amount - Cheque dishonoured - Accused cannot escape by merely saying that cheque was given only as a security and that on the date of issuance of cheque, there was no existing liability - It is for accused to rebut presumption contained in Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. (M/s Alsa Constructions and Housing Ltd. Vs M.Mal Reddy) 2000(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 568 (Mad.) : 1999 (3) ALL INDIA CRIMINAL LR (MADRAS) 0346
Sections 138 & 139 - Debt and liability - Payment stopped on the ground that cheques were not supported by consideration - Under Section 139 it has to be presumed that cheques were issued in discharge of debt or other liability - Burden of proof is on accused that cheques were not supported by consideration. (K.I.George Vs Muhammed Master) 1999(SUPPL.) CIVIL COURT CASES 107 (Kerala)
Sections 139, 118 - Section 118 creates a presumption that drawer of a cheque is a debtor in respect of the amount of the cheque and drawee is the creditor - Section 139 creates a corresponding presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque - Presumption created by Section 118 and 139 are only permissible presumptions in law from different perspectives - Both presumptions are rebuttable. (Arvind Manekalal Tailor Vs State of Gujarat) 2001(1) CIVIL COURT CASES 99 (Guj.)
Sections 139, 138, 118 - Cheque - Signature on the cheque admitted - Can be legally inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears - Section 139 enjoins on the Court to presume that the holder of the cheque received it for the discharge of any debt or liability - The burden is on the accused to rebut the aforesaid presumption. (K.Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan) 1999(3) CIVIL COURT CASES 385(S.C.) - 1999(2) APEX COURT JOURNAL 501 (S.C.)
Sections 139, 138 - 'Debt or other liability' - In view of the express provision of Section 139, 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 debt or other liability unless the contrary is proved. (Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs Narender ) 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 505 (S.C.) : 1999(1) APEX COURT JOURNAL 704 (S.C.) : 1999 ISJ (BANKING) 0348
Sections 139, 138 & Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 482 - Legal liability to pay - Complaint sought to be quashed on the ground that there was no legal liability to pay - No ground to quash the process - Issuing of process is an interim order and not a judgment - Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused could be tried. (Mohan Lal Harbans Lal Bhayana & Co. Vs OK Play India Ltd.) 1999(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 515 (Delhi)
|