Hindu Law (Mulla, 22nd Edn.)—Artcles 241 & 254—Karta—Powers & Alienation—Legal Necessity—Binding Effect of—Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family is its supreme manager and legal representative, empowered to manage family affairs, represent it in proceedings, incur debts, and alienate coparcenary property—Such alienation is valid and binding on all coparceners, including minors and widows, if made for legal necessity or benefit of estate, with a presumption of validity attaching to Karta’s acts—Existence of legal necessity is fact-specific; discharge of tax liabilities of family business constitutes legal necessity—Once such necessity is proved, the alienation cannot be challenged by any coparcener. A. Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 10 (prior to amendment)—Sp...

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Sections 118 and 139—Dishonour of cheque—Dismissal of complaint—Rebuttal of presumption—Held: Appellant/complainant failed to establish source of funds for alleged loan of Rs 5,00,000 and did not produce demand promissory note—Contradictions in her evidence regarding financial capacity and prior dealings created serious doubt—Respondent successfully rebutted statutory presumptions under Ss. 118 and 139 by cross-examination and by producing defence documents (Ex. D1 and Ex. D2)—Burden shifted back to complainant, who failed to discharge it—Trial Court’s dismissal of complaint held justified and based on proper appreciation of evidence. (Paras 2 to 5) B. Indian Evidence Act, 1872—Section 145—Contradictions—U...

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 and 139—Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Statutory presumption—Rebuttal—Financial capacity—Evidentiary value—Held: Presumption that cheque was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt is rebuttable—Accused can discharge burden by raising a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities—Where accused questions complainant’s financial capacity and genuineness of transaction, burden shifts on complainant to establish source of funds—Failure to produce contemporaneous evidence such as income tax returns, bank statements or reliable records casts serious doubt on existence of debt—Documents prepared belatedly without supporting material lack probative value—In such circumstances, presumption stands re...

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Indian Contract Act, 1872—Section 25(3)—Limitation Act, 1963—Time-barred debt—Legally enforceable liability—Held: Cheque issued in year 2004 on basis of transactions of years 1997–1998—No acknowledgment or fresh agreement to repay within limitation—In absence of a valid promise under S. 25(3) of Contract Act, debt remains time-barred and unenforceable—Cheque issued for such liability does not attract S. 138—Acquittal justified. (Paras 12–13) B. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118 and 139—Company complaint—Power of attorney—Authorization—Rebuttal of presumption—Held: Complaint prosecuted through power of attorney holder without production of Board resolution authorizi...

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Sections 118 and 139—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 320—Dishonour of cheque—Conviction—Settlement and compounding—Held: Respondent initially convicted by Trial Court for dishonour of cheque and sentenced to imprisonment with compensation—Appellate Court set aside conviction noting discrepancies in evidence including variance in signature—During pendency of further proceedings, parties entered into amicable settlement and agreed amount paid through demand drafts—In view of compromise, continuation of proceedings held unnecessary—Statutory presumptions under Ss. 118 and 139 stood eclipsed by settlement—Offence treated as compounded and respondent acquitted—Appeals dismissed accordingly. (Paras 1 to 5) ...

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138, 118 and 139—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 378—Dishonour of cheque—Appeal against acquittal—Legally enforceable debt—Rebuttal of presumption—Held: Though statutory presumption arises in favour of complainant upon proof of cheque, same is rebuttable—In present case, serious doubts regarding genuineness of transaction, prior criminal complaint alleging theft/forgery of cheque, absence of supporting documentary evidence and inconsistencies in complainant’s case—Accused successfully raised a probable defence—Presumption rebutted and complainant failed to establish legally enforceable debt—Trial Court’s view held plausible—No interference warranted in appeal against acquittal—Appeal dismissed....

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138, 118 and 139—Dishonour of cheque—Presumption—Rebuttal—Held: Though issuance of cheque and signature admitted, statutory presumption is rebuttable—Accused successfully probablized defence by showing cheque was issued as security in landlord-tenant transaction and misused during tenancy dispute—Existence of prior civil dispute, security deposit of ₹2,50,000/- and improbability of loan transaction render complainant’s case doubtful—Complainant failed to establish legally enforceable debt—Acquittal justified. B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 378—Appeal against acquittal—Scope of interference—Held: Trial Court’s findings based on proper appreciation of evidence and constitute a plausible vie...

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 138, 118 and 139—Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 378—Dishonour of cheque—Appeal against acquittal—Rebuttal of presumption—Held: Though signature on cheque admitted, statutory presumption is rebuttable—Accused successfully probablized defence by showing cheque was issued as security in landlord-tenant relationship and misused during tenancy dispute—Circumstances rendered alleged loan improbable—Complainant failed to establish legally enforceable debt—Trial Court’s view plausible—No interference warranted in appeal against acquittal—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7 to 9) ...

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118, 138, 139—Dishonour of cheque—Presumption—Rebuttal—Appeal against acquittal—Statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 arises upon admission of signature on cheque, but same is rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities—Where defence establishes probable case that cheque was issued as security in tenancy transaction and surrounding circumstances render alleged loan improbable, presumption stands rebutted—Complainant failed to prove legally enforceable debt—Trial Court rightly acquitted accused—No interference warranted in appeal in absence of perversity—Acquittal affirmed. [Paras 8, 9] ...

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Sections 118, 138, 139—Dishonour of cheque—Presumption—Rebuttal—Appeal against acquittal—Though statutory presumption arises in favour of complainant upon admission of signature on cheque, the same is rebuttable on preponderance of probabilities—Where defence establishes probable explanation (cheque issued as security in tenancy dispute) and surrounding circumstances render existence of legally enforceable debt improbable, presumption stands rebutted—Trial Court rightly held complainant failed to prove liability beyond reasonable doubt—In appeal against acquittal, no interference warranted in absence of perversity—Acquittal affirmed. [Paras 8, 9] ...