RANGAPPA v. SRI MOHAN

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal

Bench: AVNEESH JHINGAN,UMA SHANKER VYAS

…ch has also been adverted to in Basalingappa [Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418: (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 571], this Court notes that Section 139 of the NI Act is an example of reverse onus (see Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441: (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 477: (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 184]). It is also true that this Court has found that the accused is not expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. It is accordingly that the principle has developed that all which the accused needs to establish is a probable defence. As to whether a probable defence has been…

The Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Kolkata vs. M/S Itd-Itd Cem Jv (Consortium of Itd-Itd Cementation)

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…pay any money to the respondent No.3 and the said respondents also did not issue any cheque in discharge of any debt or liability. (iv) The learned Magistrate relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, 5 (2010) 11 SCC 441 and Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde, (2008) 4 SCC 54 on the issue of presumption under Section 139 of the N.I Act and came to a finding that the respondent No.2 and 3 sufficiently rebutted the presumption of existence of any legally enforceable debt or liability as provided under Section 139 of the N.I Act, 1881. 7. Thus, t…

Mr. Wilfred D Souza vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals

Bench: The Hon'Ble Ms.Justice J.M.Khazi

…is financial capacity, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu, the fact that in the income tax return, the complainant failed to disclose the fact of lending 15 (2010) 11 SCC 441 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015 c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015 23 money to the accused was held to be one of the grounds to reject the case of the complainant. 31. In the present case also, the complainant has faile…

Pr.Commissioner vs. M/S Shriram Chits

Bench: The Hon'Ble Ms Justice J.M.Khazi Criminal Appeal No.814 Of 2018 Between:

…gment and order and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 12. Heard elaborate arguments of learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for respondent and perused the record. 1 (2019) 4 SCC 197 2 (2010) 11 SCC 441 3 (2007) 6 SCC 555 4 (2023) 10 SCC 148 5 2022 SCC Online SC 1131 - 6 - CRL.A No. 814 of 2018 NC: 2024:KHC:8706 13. Before going to the merits of the case, it is necessary to examine whether the legal notice is duly served on the accused or not. During the trial, the accused has taken up a specific defence that the notice…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri M.R.Padmavathy (Indl)

In the result, all the appeals

Bench: The Hon'Ble Ms.Justice J.M.Khazi

…is financial capacity, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. In Rajaram Sriramulu Naidu, the fact that in the income tax return, the complainant failed to disclose the fact of lending 15 (2010) 11 SCC 441 CRL.A NO.12 OF 2015 c/w CRL.A NO.13 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.14 OF 2015 CRL.A NO.15 OF 2015 23 money to the accused was held to be one of the grounds to reject the case of the complainant. 31. In the present case also, the complainant has faile…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2 vs. M/S. Waltair Communications Pvt. Ltd

Bench: RAMESH RANGANATHAN,KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

The Director of Income Tax vs. Vodithala Education Society

Bench: A Closer Look At The Grounds Urged In The Memo Of Appeal, It Shall Be Apt To Have An Overview Of The Backgrounds Facts. Factual Background 3. The Gravamen Of Charge Against The Respondent Is That He Borrowed An Amount Of Rs. 20.00 Lacs From The Appellant & In Lieu, Issued A Cheque Bearing No. 2225230 Dated 03.05.2007, Drawn On The Citizens Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Vinayak Bazar, Jammu. The Appellant Presented The Cheque To His Banker, Jcc Bank, Jammu For Collection, Which On Presentation Came To Be Dishonoured

…tion that on conclusion of the defence evidence, counsel for the respondent accused made an application for re- examination of the complainant under Section 540 Cr.P.C., which was allowed 10 (2010) 11 SCC 441 19 CRAA 243/2014 by the trial court on no objection of the appellant complainant. The appellant came to be re-examined by the trial court on 26.12.2023 where he projected altogether a new story by stating that h…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6 vs. M/S Software Ag

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice Rajendra Badamikar Criminal Revision Petition No.496 Of 2016

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.496 OF 2016 BETWEEN: R. HEERANNA S/O. RAMACHANDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.132, VARALAKSHMI KRUPA, 9TH CROSS, DOCTORS CORNER, GOKULAM III STAGE, MYSURU-570 002. ….PETITIONER (BY SRI. YASHUDHAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAY .J. NANDALIKE…

The Director of Income Tax vs. M/S. Synopsys International Ltd

In the result, the appeal fails and

Bench: The Hon'Ble Ms Justice J.M.Khazi Criminal Appeal No.93 Of 2015 Between:

…to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act. The Sessions Court has also not applied to the ratio in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs. Sri.Mohan (Rangappa)1. 1 (2010) 11 SCC 441 - 6 - CRL.A No. 93 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:13678 11. The Sessions Court has also erred in observing that complainant had no financial capacity to lend loan of Rs.6,50,000/- especially when the accused has failed to rebut the evidence of complainant that she was in possession of Rs.10,00,000/- received from her husband, by se…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sri V Karunakaran

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

…1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.244/2011 BETWEEN: 1. M/S.I.T.M.S. & COMPANY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM NO.28, EAST CIRCLE ROAD V.V.PURAM BENGALURU-560 004. 2. SRI I.B.MANJUNATH S/O I.BHAKTHAVATSALAM AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS NO.28, EAST CIRCLE ROAD V.V.PURAM BENGALURU-560 004. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.J.ALVA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI A.S.VISHNU BHARATH S/O A. SATYANARAYAN AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS NO.7/8, 2ND FLOOR SHOUKATH BUILDING S.J.P.ROAD BENGALU…

Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. M/S Trilogy E Business Software India Pvt Ltd

The appeals are dismissed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

…ciating both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and hence it requires interference of this Court. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RANGAPPA v. SRI MOHAN reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441. Referring this judgment, the learned counsel would contend that the Apex 7 Court has categorically held that once the cheque has been admitted, the presumption has to be drawn. In the case on hand, the Trial Judge has not drawn the presumption. 10. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of ROHITB…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Mindtree Ltd

The appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

…ut the presumption. Under such circumstance, the Trial Court ought to have drawn presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act. 21. I would like to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RANGAPPA v. SRI MOHAN reported in (2010) 11 SCC 441, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Court can draw presumption that the cheques are given towards debt or liability, unless the same is rebutted. In the case on hand, there is no rebuttal evidence except the oral defence and the Trial Court accepted the same as probable and the said finding is erroneous. 22. Having considered the ma…

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Dr. Prabhakar Kore Credit Souharda Sahakari

Appeal is allowed

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar

…ble defence’ has grown. In an earlier judgment, in fact, which has also been adverted to in Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa [(2019) 5 SCC 418], this Court notes that Section 139 of the N.I. Act is an example of reverse onus [see Rangappa v. Sri Mohan [(2010) 11 SCC 441)]. It is also true that this Court has found that the accused is not expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof. It is accordingly that the principle has developed that all which the accused needs to establish is a probable defence. As to whether a probable defence has been established is a matter to be decided on the facts of ea…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Bilagi Pattan Sahakari Bank Niyamith

Bench: The Hon'Ble Mr Justice S.Rachaiah Criminal Appeal No. 100007 Of 2015 (A)

…of improving the credibility of negotiable instruments. While Section 138 of the Act specifies a strong criminal remedy in relation to the dishonor of cheques, the rebuttable presumption under 1 (2010) 11 SCC 441 - 8 - CRL.A No. 100007 of 2015 Section 139 is a device to prevent undue delay in the course of litigation. However, it must be remembered that the offence made punishable by Section 138 can be better described as a regulatory offence since the bouncing of a cheque is largely in the nature of a civil wrong whose impact is us…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. The Hungund Taluka Teacher

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr.Justice Ravi V.Hosmani

…IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100034 OF 2014 BETWEEN PARBHAKAR S/O BASAPPA KATAGI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND CONTRACTOR, R/O. HAVARGI, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) AND G.KRISHNAREDDY S/O NAGAREDDI, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. NO. 105, 4T H CROSS, ADARSHNAGAR, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAJENDRA R.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC…

Kasturba Road

In the result, the appeal fails and

Bench: The Hon'Ble Ms Justice J.M.Khazi Criminal Appeal No.93 Of 2015 Between:

…to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of N.I Act. The Sessions Court has also not applied to the ratio in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rangappa Vs. Sri.Mohan (Rangappa)1. 1 (2010) 11 SCC 441 - 6 - CRL.A No. 93 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:13678 11. The Sessions Court has also erred in observing that complainant had no financial capacity to lend loan of Rs.6,50,000/- especially when the accused has failed to rebut the evidence of complainant that she was in possession of Rs.10,00,000/- received from her husband, by se…