M/S Live Life Enterprises v. Rama Enterprises And Another
!"
#!
$ % $ !!
&&&&&$ %!!
!!
!!
'$ & ! ! $&
! $"
($)
!
"#$ % %
& '
(
) %*
%* +
,- )./ /.
+ & 0 * !! " 1 1$
& + & + * 2 & + ///3 3 /.
/.
* /////4) & ///!
/ / /.
3!!/4) & 5 -'
- 6 7 +5 8 )//9
/ / /.4 / /.
5 *' : ;
& * 5 &<
( **
=
5
&
** + & 0 * !! " : ;$ /!
/ *
."$ % %*
9 " :% % ;$ /!
/ 5
( &
*
0 )<* & * * *
5 9 /!
> * 7< 8 7< 8)
0 <* 2 5
?
&*
* /9/!4) 4
* 7< %)9 5 * 5
2 * 4* 4
* (
5 * !
9 (
* & &
&
2
' &&
@ & & *
* )<* * #/////4) & & 7< %9 * ) * #/////4) 7< %)9 & *
& &
* * & * #/////4) *
<* 5 5 * 7< %9 <
7< %9
& &
(
/9/!
& 7< %9 * * /3!!/4) & * #/////4) * 5
& &
*
6 *
(
% ( &
5
& & * < &
(
< ( &2
& & * 9 & <
& & )( * 9 * &
*
!"#$%
"We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a presumption that the issue of a cheque is for consideration. Sections 138 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act make that abundantly clear. That presumption is, however, rebuttable in nature. What is most important is that the standard of proof required for rebutting any such presumption is not as high as that required of the prosecution. So long as the accused can make his version reasonably probable, the burden of rebutting the presumption would stand discharged. Whether or not it is so in a given case depends upon the facts and circumstances of that case. It is trite that the courts can take into consideration the circumstances appearing in the evidence to determine whether the presumption should be held to be sufficiently rebutted. The legal position regarding the standard of proof required for rebutting a presumption is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court".
&
* * &
* + *
*
2 6 * 5 (
5 '
& 5
+ *
*
! $
!"
&
A '4
B +
A & B +