LANDMARK CASE

Rangappa v. Sri Mohan

(2010) 11 SCC 441 · Supreme Court of India · Commercial and criminal law

At a glance

Citation: (2010) 11 SCC 441
Court: Supreme Court of India
Area of law: Commercial and criminal law
In one line: It includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The accused can rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities.

1 Facts

In a cheque bounce case, the accused admitted his signature but disputed the debt.

2 Issue

What does the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cover?

3 What the court decided

It includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The accused can rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities.

4 Why it matters

Central to every cheque bounce case.

5 Think about it

How can an accused rebut the presumption?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Commercial and criminal law

Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels and Tours (2012) 5 SCC 661
Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 9 SCC 129

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← Ramlila Maidan Incident, In re Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.