https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346283 A recovery suit was held not barred by limitation because the transactions showed a continuing course of dealings and the cause of action arose within time, rather than under Article 1 of the Limitation Act for an open, mutual and current account. The security cheque was also found not to have been misused: the invoices were treated as genuine unpaid fuel bills, no contemporaneous protest was made, and the signed cheque attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which were not rebutted. As the trial court's factual findings were plausible and not perverse, appellate interference was unwarranted and the recovery decree was upheld. en-us Fri, 04 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Aug 2017 09:45:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346283 A recovery suit was held not barred by limitation because the transactions showed a continuing course of dealings and the cause of action arose within time, rather than under Article 1 of the Limitation Act for an open, mutual and current account. The security cheque was also found not to have been misused: the invoices were treated as genuine unpaid fuel bills, no contemporaneous protest was made, and the signed cheque attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which were not rebutted. As the trial court's factual findings were plausible and not perverse, appellate interference was unwarranted and the recovery decree was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346283