https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106633 In a prosecution under s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the dominant issue was whether the complaint could be quashed at the threshold on the premise that the cheque was not issued towards a "legally enforceable debt or liability." The SC held that ss.118 and 139 mandate presumptions of consideration and discharge of debt/liability unless rebutted by evidence, and that a written promise to pay a time-barred debt may constitute a valid contract under s.25(3) of the Contract Act; the cheque was not shown to relate to an inherently unenforceable liability. The HC erred in treating enforceability as conclusively negatived at the initial stage; the quashing was set aside and the complaint was remanded for trial. en-us Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106633 In a prosecution under s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the dominant issue was whether the complaint could be quashed at the threshold on the premise that the cheque was not issued towards a "legally enforceable debt or liability." The SC held that ss.118 and 139 mandate presumptions of consideration and discharge of debt/liability unless rebutted by evidence, and that a written promise to pay a time-barred debt may constitute a valid contract under s.25(3) of the Contract Act; the cheque was not shown to relate to an inherently unenforceable liability. The HC erred in treating enforceability as conclusively negatived at the initial stage; the quashing was set aside and the complaint was remanded for trial. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 08 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106633