Search Results for "Presumption Rebutted"

463 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 463 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Negotiable Instruments Act Case — Reverses Acquittal for Non-Application of Presumptions Under Sections 118 and 139. Trial Court Erred in Shifting Burden of Proof Without Considering Rebuttal Evidence and Document Exh.28.

The appellant, Sunanda Rithe, filed a criminal appeal against the acquittal of the respondent, Madhav Rajurkar, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Su...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness and Lack of Corroboration. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant, Madhukar Nagnathrao Bandale, was a Junior Clerk in Upper Painganga Project, Sub-Division No.3, Isapur. The complainant, Ganpat Kasture ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Corroboration and Unreliable Trap Witnesses. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The appellant, Rajesh s/o Roopchand Motghare, was a peon with Nagpur Municipal Corporation posted at octroi check post No.10, Wadi. On 20/8/2002, Dili...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Bombay at Goa Allows Appeal in Negotiable Instruments Act Case — Blank Cheque Defence Rejected as Unsubstantiated. Presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stands in favour of holder, and accused failed to rebut it by preponderance of probabilities.

The appellant, The Bagayatdar Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 agai...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Unreliable Trap Witness and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 set aside as demand and acceptance of bribe not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant, Yashwant Sambhaji Dadmal, a police constable, was convicted by the Special Judge, Chandrapur in Special Case No.6 of 1999 for offences ...