Bandhua Mukti Morcha Vs Union of India and Ors [1984] 2 SCR 67

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “This right to live with human dignity enshrined in Article 21 derives its life breath from the Directive Principles of State Policy and particularly Clauses (e) and (f) of Article 39 and Articles 41 and 42 and at the least, therefore, it must include protection of the health and strength of workers men and women, and of the tender age of children against abuse, opportunities and facilities for children to develop in a healthy manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity, educational facilities, just and humane conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum requirements which must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity and no State - neither the Central Government nor any State Government - has the right to take any action which will deprive a person of the enjoyment of these basic essential.”

Francis Coralie Mullin Vs The Administrator Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 CriLJ 306

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “the question which arises is whether the right to life is limited only to protection of limb or faculty or does it go further and embrace something more. We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity and all that goes along with it, namely the bare necessaries of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms, freely moving about and mixing and commingling with fellow human beings. Of course, the magnitude and content of the components of this right would depend upon the extent of the economic development of the country, but it must, in any view of the matter, include the right to the basic necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as constitute the bare minimum expression of the human-self.”

M S Narayana Menon Vs State of Kerala and Anr, AIR 2006 SC 3366

NI Act- sec 138- Cheque dishonored with the remarks "account closed"- dispute was what is the burden of accused to rebut the presumption- Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “The standard of proof evidently is pre-ponderance of probabilities. Inference of pre-ponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials on records but also by reference to the circumstances upon which he relies. Presumption drawn under a statute has only an evidentiary value. Presumptions are raised in terms of the Evidence Act. Presumption drawn in respect of one fact may be an evidence even for the purpose of drawing presumption under another…. It is not in dispute that transactions comprising purchases and sales of shares by investors is a matter of confidence. Both parties would have to rely upon one another…. Whether in the given facts and circumstances of a case, the initial burden has been discharged by an accused would be a question of fact. It was matter relating to appreciation of evidence…. A presumption is a probable inference which common sense draws from circumstances usually occurring in such cases. The slightest presumption is of the nature of probability, and there are almost infinite shades from slight probability to the highest moral certainty. A presumption, strictly speaking, results from a previously known and ascertained connection between the presumed fact and the fact from which the inference is made…. The Appellant clearly said that nothing is due and the cheque was issued by way of security. The said defence has been accepted as probable. If the defence is acceptable as probable the cheque therefore cannot be held to have been issued in discharge of the debt as, for example, if a cheque is issued for security or for any other purpose the same would not come within the purview of Section 138 of the Act….”

UOI Vs Pramod Gupta, AIR 2005 SC 3708

Evidence Act- sec4- Shall presume- Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “It is true that the legislature used two different phraseologies "shall be presumed" and "may be presumed" in Section 42 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act and furthermore although provided for the mode and manner of rebuttal of such presumption as regards the right to mines and minerals said to be vested in the Government vis-à-vis the absence thereof in relation to the lands presumed to be retained by the landowners but the same would not mean that the words "shall presume" would be conclusive. The meaning of the expressions "may presume" and "shall presume" have been explained in Section 4 of the Evidence Act, 1872, from a perusal whereof it would be evident that whenever it is directed that the court shall presume a fact it shall regard such fact as proved unless disproved. In terms of the said provision, thus, the expression "shall presume" cannot be held to be synonymous with "conclusive proof....”

Keshardeo Chamria Vs Radha Kissen Chamria and Ors, AIR 1953 SC 23

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “The proceedings that commenced with the decree-holder's application for restoration of the execution and terminated with the order of revival can in no sense be said to relate to the determination of any question concerning the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree. Such proceedings are in their nature collateral to the execution and are independent of it…. It was not contended and could not be seriously urged, that an order under section 151 simpliciter is appealable….”

K Bhaskaran Vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan, AIR 1999 SC 3762

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “As the signature in the cheque is admitted to be that of the accused, the presumption envisaged in Section 118 of the Act can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for consideration on the date which the cheque bears…. The offence under Section 138 of the Act can be completed only with the concatenation of a number of acts. Following are the acts which are components of the said offence : (1) Drawing of the cheque, (2) Presentation of the cheque to the bank, (3) Returning the cheque unpaid by the drawee bank, (4) Giving notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque demanding payment of the cheque amount, (5) failure of the drawer to make payment within 15 days of the receipt of the notice…. The more important point to be decided in this case is whether the cause of action has arisen at all as the notice sent by the complainant to the accused was returned as 'unclaimed.'… when a notice is returned by the sender as unclaimed such date would be the commencing date in reckoning the period of 15 days contemplated in Clause (c) to the proviso of Section 138 of the Act….”

Taylor Vs Portington

An agreement to take a lease of a house if put into thorough repair, and the drawing-rooms handsomely decorated according to the present style. Held, too uncertain for the Court to enforce.

Hadley & Anor v Baxendale & Ors,1854 EWHC Exch J70

One broken shaft, to be conveyed by the defendants as carriers and although such second day elapsed before the commencement of this suit, yet the defendants did not nor would deliver the said broken shaft at Greenwich on the said second day, but wholly neglected and refused so to do for the space of seven days after the said shaft was so delivered to defendant. Due to absence of that shaft, mill of plaintiff was closed. The plaintiffs' servant told the clerk of defendant that the mill was stopped, and that the shaft must be sent immediately; and in answer to the inquiry when the shaft would be taken, the answer was, that if it was sent up by twelve o'clock an day, it would be delivered at Greenwich on the following day.
if the special circumstances under which the contract was actually made where communicated by the plaintiffs to the defendants, and thus known to both parties, the damages resulting from the breach of such a contract, which they would reasonably contemplate, would be the amount of injury which would ordinarily follow from a breach of contract under these special circumstances so known and communicated. But, on the other hand, if these special circumstances were wholly unknown to the party breaking the contract, he, at the most, could only be supposed to have had in his contemplation the amount of injury which would arise generally, and in the great multitude of cases not affected by any special circumstances, from such a breach of contract.
The rule that the immediate cause is to be regarded in considering the loss, is applicable here. There was no special contract between these parties. A carrier has a certain duty cast upon him by law, and that duty is not to be enlarged to an indefinite extent in the absence of a special contract, or of fraud or malice. The maxim "dolus circuitu non purgatur", does not apply. The duty of the clerk, who was in attendance at the defendants' office, was to enter the article, and to take the amount of the carriage; but a mere notice to him, such as was here given, could not make the defendants, as carriers, liable as upon a special contract.

Goa Plast (P) Ltd Vs Chico Ursula D'Souza AIR 2004 SC 408

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “….cheque was dishonoured by the Bank on the ground that the respondent had issued instructions to stop payment…. the High Court and the learned Magistrate treated the proof adduced by the respondent, namely, the letter, denying the liability and that some other person is liable as sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act…. To fulfil the objective, the Legislature while amending the Act has made the following procedure:

"(i) Under Section 138 a deeming offence is created.

(ii) In Section 139, a presumption is ingrained that the holder of the cheque received it in discharge of liability.

(iii) Disallowing a defence in Section 140 that drawer has no reason to believe that cheque would be dishonoured.

(iv) An explanation is provided to Section 138 to define the words "debt or other liability" to mean a legally enforceable debt or other liability."….
Both the Courts, in our view, failed to consider the important aspect as to the stop payment instructions issued by the respondent. Ordinarily, the stop payment instructions are issued to the Bank by the account holder when there is no sufficient amount in the account….
Both the Courts below have ignored the admission of the liability by the respondent who stated that the liability did exist but he was not responsible for it. While considering this, the Courts below treated the proof adduced by the respondent, namely, letter denying liability and that some other person is liable for it, as sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Act….
Certain comments were made by the High Court in regard to the relationship of the parties. For the cases filed under Section 142 of the Act for offence committed under the Act the relationship between the drawer and the drawee is not material because the liability admitted is one which can be legally enforced by way of suit…..”

K N Beena Vs Muniyappan and Anr 2001 CrLJ 4745

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, "In this case admittedly the Ist respondent has led no evidence except some formal evidence. The High Court appears to have proceeded on the basis that the denials/averments in his reply dated 21.5.1993 were sufficient to shift the burden of proof on to the appellant complainant to prove that the cheque was issued for a debt or liability. This is an entirely erroneous approach. The Ist respondent had to prove in the trial, by leading cogent evidence, that there was no debt or liability.”