NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports  ||  Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC  ||  SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation  ||  SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job  ||  NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights  ||  NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation  ||  Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation  ||  Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute'  ||  Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices  ||  Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear    

SC: Statement of Accused Not Substantive Evidence of Defence to Rebut Presumption u/s 139 NI Act - (10 Mar 2021)

BANKING

Supreme Court has stated that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not a substantive evidence of defence to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the cheques were issued for consideration.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   EVIDENCE OF DEFENCE TO REBUT PRESUMPTION U/S 139 NI ACT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved