Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – How to Rebut Presumption under Section 139

Negotiable Instrument Act 1981- Section 139 of the Act is an example of a reverse on us clause so once a check is issued and the check signature is accepted, there is always a plausible reason for the plaintiff to have a legal debt or debt and then to sue for that reason.

Defendant has agreed to issue checks with his signature check and that the check in question has been issued a second time, after the previous checks were discredited and even according to the respondent a certain amount was due, there is a consideration under Section 139 of NI. Of course, such reasoning is inherently contradictory. However, in order to contest the defendant's consideration it was necessary to provide proof that the full amount due and to the plaintiff had been paid. In the current situation, there is no such evidence led by the accused. The allegation made by the suspects that the checks issued in a secure manner is unbelievable if there is no other evidence to refute the assertion and in particular the check in question was issued a second time, after the previous checks were discredited. Therefore, both the lower courts erred in misrepresentation and considered the plaintiff's favor in favor of a debt or debt that could be legally enforceable in terms of Section 139 of the N The law. It appears that both the Court of Academic Affairs as well as the Supreme Court, have erred in assigning the plaintiff to the plaintiff to prove a debt or debt, without thanking the consideration under Section 139 of the N.I Act.