Calcutta HC says GD entry alone cannot rebut cheque presumption
In short
The Calcutta High Court said a general diary entry about a lost cheque is not enough by itself to fight the legal presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
The summary says the entry was only a one-sided claim and had no independent proof. This matters for cheque bounce cases, but the underlying facts of the dispute are not stated.
What the reporting says
The Calcutta High Court held that a mere general diary entry about a lost cheque cannot rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The publisher summary says the court found such an entry to be a unilateral statement unsupported by independent evidence. The immediate consequence is that cheque dispute defenses based only on an uncorroborated GD entry may not succeed, though the underlying case facts are not stated.
Why it matters
The Calcutta High Court ruled that an uncorroborated general diary entry cannot by itself rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The publisher summary says the court treated the GD entry as a unilateral statement without independent evidence. This affects parties in cheque dispute litigation because a bare loss report may not be enough to defeat the statutory presumption, but the specific case outcome is not stated.