https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275010 The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, dismissing the appeal. The accused successfully rebutted the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the N.I. Act by showing the cheque was for security, not a debt from a joint business. The court found no evidence of a joint business between the accused and his brother, concluding the complainant failed to establish the debt's joint nature. Additionally, the court determined that the returned statutory notice did not constitute constructive notice as there was no proof of intentional evasion by the accused. en-us Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Sep 2018 15:16:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275010 The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, dismissing the appeal. The accused successfully rebutted the presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the N.I. Act by showing the cheque was for security, not a debt from a joint business. The court found no evidence of a joint business between the accused and his brother, concluding the complainant failed to establish the debt's joint nature. Additionally, the court determined that the returned statutory notice did not constitute constructive notice as there was no proof of intentional evasion by the accused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275010