LexM/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISES versus KAVITA SARAFF AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 4 S.C.R. 255 : 2024 INSC 288 M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises v. Kavita Saraff and Another (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 5583 of 2022) 09 April 2024 [Aniruddha Bose* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as to whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt and if so, whether the respondent no.1 was able to rebut the presumption in terms of s. 118/139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. Headnotes Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 – ss. 118/139 – Dishonour of cheque – Sum involved therein, if advanced in discharge of a legally enforceable debt – Raising of presumption u/s. 139 – Complaint by partnership firm alleging dishonour of cheques issued by the respondent no. 1 on the ground of insufficiency of funds – Case of partnership firm that it had granted financial assistance to the respondent no.1 and the said cheques were issued in discharge of her liability – Respondent no.1’s case that money was advanced to the respondent no.1 for undertaking stock market related transactions through her account – Trial court convicted the respondent no. 1 u/s. 138 since she failed to rebut the presumption – However, the first appellate court acquitted the respondent no. 1 holding that she rebutted the presumption – High Court upheld the same – Interference with: Held: Not called for – As regards the sum involved in the cheques advanced in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or not, the complainant failed to show if any sum was advanced towards financial assistance – High Court found that the debt/liability, in discharge of which, according to the complainant, the cheques were issued, did not reflect in the complainant’s balance-sheet – Other partners of the firm did not depose as prosecution witnesses to establish that the cheque-amounts were advanced to the respondent no. 1 as financial assistance – Respondent 256 [2024] 4 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports no. 1 has put up a plausible defence as regards the reason for which the complainant’s funds had come to her account – Both the appellate fora, on going through the evidence did not find existence of any “enforceable debt or other liability” – Thus, it cannot be held that the findings of the High Court and the first appellate court were perverse, or based on no evidence. [Paras 11, 12] Case Law Cited Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabodh Kumar Tewari [2022] 7 SCR 72 : 2022 INSC 832; Kalamani Tex and Another v. P. Balasubramanian [2021] 1 SCR 668 : (2021) 5 SCC 283; Shree Daneshwari Traders v. Sanjay Jain and Another [2019] 11 SCR 370 : (2019) 16 SCC 83; Uttam Ram v. Devinder Singh Hudan and Another [2019] 13 SCR 425 : (2019) 10 SCC 287; Rahul Sudhakar Anantwar v. Shivkumar Kanhiyalal Shrivastav (2019) 10 SCC 203; Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda [2018] 5 SCR 69 : (2018) 8 SCC 165; D.K. Chandel v Wockhardt Limited (2020) 13 SCC 471; Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Another [2019] 5 SCR 417 : (2019) 18 SCC 106; Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa [2019] 6 SCR 555 : (2019) 5 SCC 418; K. Subramani v. K. Damodara Naidu [2014] 11 SCR 169 : (2015) 1 SCC 99; Reverend Mother Marykutty v. Reni C. Kottaram and Another [2012] 9 SCR 530 : (2013) 1 SCC 327; Krishna Janardhan Bhat v. Dattatraya G. Hegde [2008] 1 SCR 605 : (2008) 4 SCC 54; John K. Abraham v. Simon C. Abraham and Another [2013] 12 SCR 753 : (2014) 2 SCC 236; Narendra Pratap Narain Singh v. State of U.P. [1991] 2 SCR 88 : (1991) 2 SCC 623 – referred to. List of Acts Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Dishonour of cheque; Discharge of legally enforceable debt; Rebut the presumption; Raising of presumption; Insufficiency of funds; Enforceable debt or other liability. [2024] 4 S.C.R. 257 M/S Rajco Steel Enterprises v. Kavita Saraff and Another Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Petition For Special Leave To Appeal (Criminal) No.5583 of 2022 From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.2021 of the High Court at Calcutta in CRA No.424 of 2017 With Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 5996, 5781 And 6046 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Raju Ramchandran, Mrs. Aparajita Singh, Sr. Advs., Amit Kumar Singh, Avnish Pandey, Advs. for the Petitioner. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Monisha Handa, Rajul Shrivastav, Anubhav Sharma, Bhagirath N. Patel, Ms. Mantika Haryani, Ms. Muskan Surana, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.