https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340503 The court upheld the maintainability of the complaint, rejecting objections regarding authorization and the existence of debt at the time of the cheque issuance. It affirmed the negotiability of the cheque as a negotiable instrument and determined that the letter dated 21st March, 2016 did not alter this status. The court emphasized that the interpretation of the letter would be addressed during trial. Additionally, the court highlighted the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the NI Act, indicating that this presumption could only be rebutted during trial proceedings. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition and application, allowing the issues to be resolved during the trial. en-us Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:15:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340503 The court upheld the maintainability of the complaint, rejecting objections regarding authorization and the existence of debt at the time of the cheque issuance. It affirmed the negotiability of the cheque as a negotiable instrument and determined that the letter dated 21st March, 2016 did not alter this status. The court emphasized that the interpretation of the letter would be addressed during trial. Additionally, the court highlighted the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the NI Act, indicating that this presumption could only be rebutted during trial proceedings. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition and application, allowing the issues to be resolved during the trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340503