https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345433 Summoning under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not quashed because the cheques arose from admitted commercial dealings and acknowledged liability. Section 20 supported prima facie authority for completion of an inchoate or undated cheque, so later filling of the instrument did not by itself defeat enforceability. The pleas that the cheques were time-barred or not issued for a legally enforceable debt were treated as fact-linked questions requiring examination of the parties' correspondence and conduct. At the Section 482 CrPC stage, those disputed issues were found unsuitable for interference, and the summoning order was left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Jul 2017 10:22:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345433 Summoning under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not quashed because the cheques arose from admitted commercial dealings and acknowledged liability. Section 20 supported prima facie authority for completion of an inchoate or undated cheque, so later filling of the instrument did not by itself defeat enforceability. The pleas that the cheques were time-barred or not issued for a legally enforceable debt were treated as fact-linked questions requiring examination of the parties' correspondence and conduct. At the Section 482 CrPC stage, those disputed issues were found unsuitable for interference, and the summoning order was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345433