TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses appeals in section 138 cases due to lack of privity of contract</h1> <h3>Birender Singh Versus State (Nct Of Delhi) And Anr.</h3> Birender Singh Versus State (Nct Of Delhi) And Anr. - TMI Issues Involved:The judgment involves appeals against judgments in complaint cases u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) where the respondent denied privity of contract with the complainants regarding dishonored cheques issued for loan liability.Issue 1: Privity of Contract and Misuse of ChequesThe respondent denied any contract with the complainants, claiming the cheques were given to an employee of a Chit Fund Company. Disputes arose between the respondent and the Chit Fund Company, leading to allegations of misuse of cheques. The complainants alleged non-payment despite notice u/s 138 of NI Act.Issue 2: Discrepancies in Loan Amount and Cheque AmountDiscrepancies were noted in the loan amount and cheque amount in all three cases. The complainants' testimonies deviated from the facts stated in the complaints, raising doubts. The complainants failed to explain the differences during cross-examination, weakening their case.Issue 3: Burden of Proof and PresumptionsThe trial court held that the accused need not disprove the case with direct evidence but could rely on cross-examination to rebut the presumption u/s 139/118 of NI Act. The burden rests on the accused to rebut the presumption, which can be done through evidence from both sides.Judicial Precedent and Burden of ProofCounsel for the appellants argued that the accused must rebut the presumption with direct evidence. Referring to legal precedents, it was emphasized that the accused can rebut the presumption through cross-examination and evidence from both sides. The court must consider all evidence in the case, not just that favoring the complainant.ConclusionThe accused successfully demonstrated that the cheques were issued with specific endorsements, indicating they were not for loan liabilities exceeding a certain amount. The uniformity in the notices issued by the complainants and discrepancies in loan amounts further supported the respondent's case. The court concluded there was no privity of contract and dismissed the appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
