<?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 (9) TMI 840 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367104</link>
    <description>A cheque signed by the accused guarantor and dishonoured for insufficiency of funds attracted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because it was issued towards an existing loan liability arising from his guaranty for his son&#039;s borrowing. The court held that, once issuance and signature were admitted, the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt arose in favour of the cheque holder. The accused failed to produce material sufficient to rebut that presumption. The cheque was therefore treated as issued in discharge of a legally recoverable liability, and the conviction was not interfered with.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Sep 2018 07:38:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=534473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 840 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367104</link>
      <description>A cheque signed by the accused guarantor and dishonoured for insufficiency of funds attracted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because it was issued towards an existing loan liability arising from his guaranty for his son&#039;s borrowing. The court held that, once issuance and signature were admitted, the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt arose in favour of the cheque holder. The accused failed to produce material sufficient to rebut that presumption. The cheque was therefore treated as issued in discharge of a legally recoverable liability, and the conviction was not interfered with.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>