#presumption of debt

The Karnataka High Court held that when a surrender deed formally crystallizes a debt, the issuance of a signed blank cheque automatically triggers the statutory presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused’s failure to rebut this presumption-through silence, lack of forensic challenge, or admission of liability in IT returns-was fatal to the defense, reinforcing that procedural inaction cannot override statutory presumptions in commercial disputes.

Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that the statutory presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is invalidated when cheques are self-filled by the complainant and testimony lacks documentary corroboration. The judgment underscores that conviction requires credible evidence of a legally enforceable debt, not mere allegations.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that a bare claim of a cheque being issued as security, without supporting evidence, cannot override the statutory presumption under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The judgment reinforces that accused parties must substantiate their defense to avoid conviction, even for unregistered firms.

Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that blank cheques issued for household expenses, not debt, cannot invoke the presumption under Section 138 of the NI Act. The judgment underscores that the complainant must prove an underlying liability at the time of issuance to sustain a conviction, offering critical protection for accused in misuse cases.

Himachal Pradesh HC rules that once an accused admits issuing a cheque, Section 139 NI Act presumption of debt arises automatically, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove liability. Mere denial in Section 313 CrPC statement is insufficient to rebut the presumption, reinforcing complainant's evidentiary advantage in cheque dishonour cases.

Calcutta High Court affirms that dishonour of cheque due to 'no such account' still attracts Section 138 NI Act if issued for legally enforceable debt. Burden shifts to accused to rebut presumption.