Reassessment under s.148A held valid; s.69 additions totaling Rs.7,00,000 deleted after acceptable contemporaneous explanations for property investmen...
No Records Found
Page of 4316
1 to 20 of 86308 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 3000
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The court held that even if a debt is time-barred, the issuance...
Old debt revived by cheque, attracts penal action for dishonor.
📋
Contents
Cases Cited
Referred In
Notifications
Circulars
Forms
Manuals
Acts
Rules & Regulations
Plus +
Source NTF
AI Summary
Similar
Note
Bookmark
Share
https://www.taxtmi.com/hi...
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
ExpandCollapse
Indian LawsSeptember 19, 2024Case LawsHC
The court held that even if a debt is time-barred, the issuance of a cheque towards such debt creates a fresh legally enforceable liability u/s 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This provision deems a written promise to pay a time-barred debt as a valid contract. Consequently, the dishonor of such a cheque can attract penal provisions u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The acquittal order was set aside, recognizing that the furnishing of a cheque for a time-barred debt effectively resurrects the debt itself through a fresh agreement u/s 25(3) of the ICA. Denying the drawee's right to invoke Section 138 despite Section 25(3)'s recognition of a fresh agreement to pay would be an unfortunate disentitlement.
The court held that even if a debt is time-barred, the issuance of a cheque towards such debt creates a fresh legally enforceable liability u/s 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. This provision deems a written promise to pay a time-barred debt as a valid contract. Consequently, the dishonor of such a cheque can attract penal provisions u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The acquittal order was set aside, recognizing that the furnishing of a cheque for a time-barred debt effectively resurrects the debt itself through a fresh agreement u/s 25(3) of the ICA. Denying the drawee's right to invoke Section 138 despite Section 25(3)'s recognition of a fresh agreement to pay would be an unfortunate disentitlement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick
reference only.