TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complainant proved that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt and whether the acquittal recorded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference.
Analysis: The cheque and signature were admitted, attracting the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused was required only to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probability, and he did so by relying on the surrounding circumstances and the complainant's own admissions. The complainant failed to establish the date and source of the alleged cash loan, did not show the transaction in income-tax returns, produced no bank records to prove financial capacity, and his conduct was inconsistent with a genuine loan of the stated magnitude. The materials also supported the defence that the complainant was engaged in private money-lending and that the cheque was not issued for the claimed debt.
Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted, the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the acquittal required no interference.
TaxTMI 
