Vijay v. Laxman

Mr. Wilfred D Souza vs. The Income Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals

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

…to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt including the financial capacity. 21. In the light of the ratio in the above decisions, at the outset, it is necessary to examine whether the 12 (2013) 3 SCC 86 13 (2015) 1 SCC 99 14 (2008) 1 SCC 258 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 16 complainant has proved his financial capacity to lend Rs.20 lakhs to the accused. During the course of his examin…

State Bank of India vs. The Assistant Commissioner

In the result, both appeal as well as

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

…bt including the financial capacity. 19. In John K.Abraham Vs. Simon C. Abraham & Anr (John K.Abraham)6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in order to draw presumption under Sections 3 (2013) 3 SCC 86 4 (2015) 1 SCC 99 5 (2008) 1 SCC 258 6 (2014) 2 SCC 236 CRL.A NO.647 OF 2018 10 118 and 139 of N.I Act, the burden lies on the complainant to show that: (i) She had the requisite funds for advancing the sum of money/loan in question to…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Karnataka Bank Ltd

In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly the following:

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

…Section 139 of N.I Act is a rebuttable presumption and initial burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption after which the burden would shift on the complainant to prove his case. 10 (2013) 3 SCC 86 11 (2015) 1 SCC 99 12 (2008) 1 SCC 258 CRL.A NO.405 OF 2018 11 21. Keeping the ratio in the above decisions in mind, it is necessary to examine whether the complainant has proved that in the first week of May 2013 he had the capacity to…

Pr.Commissioner vs. M/S Shriram Chits

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

…and K.Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surenderan (K.Prakashan)11, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, is a rebuttable presumption and 8 (2020) 12 SCC 724 9 (2013) 3 SCC 86 10 (2015) 1 SCC 99 11 (2008) 1 SCC 258 - 11 - CRL.A No. 814 of 2018 NC: 2024:KHC:8706 when accused rebut the same by preponderance of probabilities, it is for the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt including the financial capacity. 21. In the light of ratio in the above decisions, it is necessary to exa…

M/S Suretex Prophylactics India Private Limited vs. The Commissioner of Central Excise

Appeal is allowed

Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR,E.S.INDIRESH

…eld that the presumption under the said provisions is rebuttable. Nagaraj would have been the best witness to rebut the presumption, but the cheque has been presented after his death. 3 (2013) 3 SCC 86 para 21 R.F.A No.32/2017 15 26. It was also submitted by Shri. Aithal that instructions were given by Nagaraj’s wife who was keeping indifferent health and suffering from epilepsy; and s…

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

…to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt including the financial capacity. 21. In the light of the ratio in the above decisions, at the outset, it is necessary to examine whether the 12 (2013) 3 SCC 86 13 (2015) 1 SCC 99 14 (2008) 1 SCC 258 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 16 complainant has proved his financial capacity to lend Rs.20 lakhs to the accused. During the course of his examin…

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

…e of an existing debt, the said presumption, in terms of Sections 118 and 139 of NI Act, can be rebutted by the accused by 4 (2009) 2 SCC 513 5 (2008) 1 SCC 258 6 [2008 A.I.R. (SC) 1325] 7 (2013) 3 SCC 86 8 (2008) CrlJ 2405 6 CRAA 243/2014 bringing on record such facts and circumstances, which may lead the court to conclude, either that the consideration and the debt did not exist or that their existence was so pr…

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:

…and K.Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surenderan (K.Prakashan)8, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, is a rebuttable presumption and 5 (2020) 12 SCC 724 6 (2013) 3 SCC 86 7 (2015) 1 SCC 99 8 (2008) 1 SCC 258 - 11 - CRL.A No. 93 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:13678 when accused rebut the same by preponderance of probabilities, it is for the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt including his financial capacity. 20. Keeping in mind the ratio in the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme…

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:

…and K.Prakashan Vs. P.K.Surenderan (K.Prakashan)8, also the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act, is a rebuttable presumption and 5 (2020) 12 SCC 724 6 (2013) 3 SCC 86 7 (2015) 1 SCC 99 8 (2008) 1 SCC 258 - 11 - CRL.A No. 93 of 2015 NC: 2024:KHC:13678 when accused rebut the same by preponderance of probabilities, it is for the complainant to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt including his financial capacity. 20. Keeping in mind the ratio in the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Karnataka Power Transmission

Bench: The Hon’Ble Mr. Justice K.Natarajan Criminal Revision Petition No.305 Of 2011 C/W Criminal Revision Petition No.304 Of 2011

…n 139 of N.I.Act. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case 18 of M. Manohar Reddy and another vs. Union of India and others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 99 and also in the case of Vijay vs. Laxman and another reported in (2013) 3 SCC 86 has held that the when a cheque is issued by a person who has signed on the cheque and the complainant reasonably discharges the burden that the cheque had been issued towards a lawful payment, it is for the accused to discharge the burden under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I.Act and not required to prove beyond reasonable doubt as required i…