M/S Sandhya Finance Limited Through Its Director v. Sukh Dev
!"#$%&'(
" )* + , -,
! "# $
%%% -, (+.
/&0 &
'()*+,- -$ $ . $ -/ 0 &+1)233 $ 45&(# &' 6 7#45&(# &')$ 0 73/ #&))&*$ #8 8, 4 / 7 $ $ $ 4#55#5552 9
:/ ; $ -0; 7 '< / /$ &<26$$ /# 7 0)<4+=+41 > #45&(/ =5#5552 0!!0"$ ! #0 ? 7 ; .
// + #45&( /8 $$
$8$
# $ ' # $
$ # /// $
# $ # .# .//#
# $/$ + $ 2:/ (5#5552 7 / 7 9 # $ 7 7 1
$ $ $
7 $ 7 7 $ $ .# . < $
7/ - . /
/$ /$ / (5#5552 7 2# 7 :$ /
<(#1552 7 9 ?
/ &')$ ( / &&)&'=$ $ $ $ 7 / 776
$ 7 / # $ 8.
The Supreme Court in Vijay v . Laxman and another, 2013 ( 2 ) JT 562 held as under :
" 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
1 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." = $
$7$ / 7 # $ $ $7 7 &5
$ #
$ /
7#
/$ && 0 /$$ #$ #/ 7 /"/
7 7 &4
/ .AVNEESH JHINGAN 0 th July, 2022 @ A0 @ 7 A0