TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The HC affirmed the concurrent findings of the MM and the ASJ, holding that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act that the dishonoured cheques represented a legally enforceable debt. The accused did not testify or produce cogent corroborative evidence (bank statements, dated delivery of purported security cheques, or valid receipts) to prove that the instruments were mere security or that the debt was discharged. The limitation plea was rejected, including on the basis of written acknowledgement and Section 25(3) Indian Contract Act principles. The conviction and sentence were upheld and the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
