<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (4) TMI 252 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110792</link>
    <description>An account entry in a sundry debtors register, by itself, did not prove that the respondent owed the claimed debt. The entry only reflected an opening balance in the respondent&#039;s name and, without proof that the books were regularly maintained or supported by corroborating evidence, it was insufficient to establish liability. Purchase orders and payment details pointing to transactions with another concern further weakened the claim, and no witness was produced from among those who maintained or could prove the company&#039;s accounts. The claimed sum, interest, and notice charges were therefore not substantiated on the evidence produced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:19:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 252 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110792</link>
      <description>An account entry in a sundry debtors register, by itself, did not prove that the respondent owed the claimed debt. The entry only reflected an opening balance in the respondent&#039;s name and, without proof that the books were regularly maintained or supported by corroborating evidence, it was insufficient to establish liability. Purchase orders and payment details pointing to transactions with another concern further weakened the claim, and no witness was produced from among those who maintained or could prove the company&#039;s accounts. The claimed sum, interest, and notice charges were therefore not substantiated on the evidence produced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>