Section 118: Presumptions as to negotiable instruments Until the contrary is proved, the following presumption shall be made

Negotiable Instruments Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1881

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 118

Section 118 enacts powerful statutory presumptions as to negotiable instruments, mandating that the court shall presume consideration, date, time of acceptance, time of transfer, order of indorsements, stamping, and that every holder is a holder in due course.

  • Mandatory 'Shall Presume' Status: The court is legally bound to presume all statutory facts under clauses (a) to (g); the burden of disproving them rests entirely upon the defendant.
  • Presumption of Consideration: Presumed that every negotiable instrument was made, drawn, accepted, and indorsed for valuable consideration.
  • Standard for Rebuttal: The defendant can rebut the presumption by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities through cross-examination or documentary evidence.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Bharat Barrel & Drum Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal (1999) 3 SCC 35: The Supreme Court authoritatively settled that the presumption under Section 118(a) is mandatory; the defendant cannot rebut it by mere denial, but must produce evidence making non-existence of consideration probable.
  • M.S. Narayana Menon v. State of Kerala (2006) 6 SCC 39: The Supreme Court ruled that the standard of proof to rebut Section 118/139 presumptions is preponderance of probabilities, which can be discharged even from the complainant's own admissions.
  • Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar (2019) 4 SCC 197: Affirmed that voluntarily handing over a signed instrument triggers mandatory presumptions under Section 118 and Section 139.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

Section 118 is the cornerstone of commercial paper litigation. As plaintiff's counsel, once execution and signature are admitted or proved, you do NOT have to prove consideration in chief; the burden is on the defendant. As defense counsel, concentrate cross-examination on creating doubt regarding the plaintiff's financial capacity or accounting records to displace Section 118.