<?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 (10) TMI 479 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368513</link>
    <description>Admission of a cheque signature under the Negotiable Instruments Act attracted the presumption in favour of the holder, but that presumption remained rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused successfully raised a probable defence by relying on the surrounding circumstances of the alleged loan, including the absence of contemporaneous documents, no prior business relationship, and the improbability of an unsecured cash loan of that nature. The complainant also failed to establish financial capacity to advance the loan or show that the transaction was one of ordinary prudent conduct. On that basis, the conviction could not be sustained and the acquittal was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2018 14:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=537690" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (10) TMI 479 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368513</link>
      <description>Admission of a cheque signature under the Negotiable Instruments Act attracted the presumption in favour of the holder, but that presumption remained rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused successfully raised a probable defence by relying on the surrounding circumstances of the alleged loan, including the absence of contemporaneous documents, no prior business relationship, and the improbability of an unsecured cash loan of that nature. The complainant also failed to establish financial capacity to advance the loan or show that the transaction was one of ordinary prudent conduct. On that basis, the conviction could not be sustained and the acquittal was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=368513</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>