<?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>2018 (8) TMI 707 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365235</link>
    <description>Where the cheque signature is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise, and the accused may rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities, including by relying on the complainant&#039;s own material. On the facts, the complainant&#039;s regular transactions, matching bills, and supporting circumstances established the cheque liability, while the defence of a security cheque remained unsupported, with no reply to notice and no evidence from the accused. The distinction drawn by the trial court between the description of goods in the bills was held strained, and the adverse inference regarding octroi documents was rejected. The acquittal under Section 138 was set aside and the conviction restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2018 06:11:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 707 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365235</link>
      <description>Where the cheque signature is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise, and the accused may rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities, including by relying on the complainant&#039;s own material. On the facts, the complainant&#039;s regular transactions, matching bills, and supporting circumstances established the cheque liability, while the defence of a security cheque remained unsupported, with no reply to notice and no evidence from the accused. The distinction drawn by the trial court between the description of goods in the bills was held strained, and the adverse inference regarding octroi documents was rejected. The acquittal under Section 138 was set aside and the conviction restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>