<?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 (12) TMI 1446 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353177</link>
    <description>A conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was restored because the cheque was issued towards an admitted business liability, was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and statutory notice went unanswered. The accused&#039;s claim that the cheque had been given earlier to a third party and that no liability existed was not supported by independent evidence. The complainant&#039;s failure to produce account books did not, by itself, rebut the statutory presumption where the surrounding facts supported liability. The trial court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the complainant and in treating the presumption as rebutted without adequate defence evidence, so the acquittal was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2017 18:49:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=501590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (12) TMI 1446 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353177</link>
      <description>A conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was restored because the cheque was issued towards an admitted business liability, was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and statutory notice went unanswered. The accused&#039;s claim that the cheque had been given earlier to a third party and that no liability existed was not supported by independent evidence. The complainant&#039;s failure to produce account books did not, by itself, rebut the statutory presumption where the surrounding facts supported liability. The trial court erred in shifting the burden of proof to the complainant and in treating the presumption as rebutted without adequate defence evidence, so the acquittal was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353177</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>