https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352576 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not invalid merely because it is instituted through a duly authorised power of attorney holder, where the payee is also examined and the authority is proved on record. The objection to maintainability was therefore rejected. The presumption under Section 139 was not rebutted, because the sale deed relied on by the accused did not show that transfer of immovable property was in discharge of the firm's liability. Dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of notice, non-payment, and the accused's role in the firm and execution of the cheque supported conviction under Section 138. The conviction was affirmed, while relief was granted against substantive imprisonment on compliance with the fine direction. en-us Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Dec 2017 08:26:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352576 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not invalid merely because it is instituted through a duly authorised power of attorney holder, where the payee is also examined and the authority is proved on record. The objection to maintainability was therefore rejected. The presumption under Section 139 was not rebutted, because the sale deed relied on by the accused did not show that transfer of immovable property was in discharge of the firm's liability. Dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of notice, non-payment, and the accused's role in the firm and execution of the cheque supported conviction under Section 138. The conviction was affirmed, while relief was granted against substantive imprisonment on compliance with the fine direction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352576