<?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>2017 (7) TMI 577 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345465</link>
    <description>A cheque issued in connection with an existing legally enforceable liability can attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even if the drawer describes it as a security cheque. A bare defence that no liability existed raises a disputed factual issue and cannot ordinarily be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Where the complaint and surrounding material indicate a monetary obligation arising from the parties&#039; arrangement, the statutory presumption under Section 139 operates in favour of the holder and can be rebutted only through evidence. On that basis, quashing at the threshold was held inappropriate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jul 2017 10:17:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481808" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 577 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345465</link>
      <description>A cheque issued in connection with an existing legally enforceable liability can attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even if the drawer describes it as a security cheque. A bare defence that no liability existed raises a disputed factual issue and cannot ordinarily be resolved in proceedings under Section 482 CrPC. Where the complaint and surrounding material indicate a monetary obligation arising from the parties&#039; arrangement, the statutory presumption under Section 139 operates in favour of the holder and can be rebutted only through evidence. On that basis, quashing at the threshold was held inappropriate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>