<?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 (11) TMI 680 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370337</link>
    <description>In a summary suit, leave to defend may be refused where the defendant fails to disclose a substantial defence or any genuine triable issue. Signed cheque and receipt evidence supported the plaintiff&#039;s loan claim, and the defendant&#039;s allegation that the cheque was only security for another person&#039;s loan was not backed by contemporaneous complaint or legal notice alleging misuse or fraud. The court also noted that receipt of legal notice was not denied and that proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 did not assist the defence, while the presumption under section 118 supported issuance for consideration. Refusal of leave to defend was upheld and the summary decree stood affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 07:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542080" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 680 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370337</link>
      <description>In a summary suit, leave to defend may be refused where the defendant fails to disclose a substantial defence or any genuine triable issue. Signed cheque and receipt evidence supported the plaintiff&#039;s loan claim, and the defendant&#039;s allegation that the cheque was only security for another person&#039;s loan was not backed by contemporaneous complaint or legal notice alleging misuse or fraud. The court also noted that receipt of legal notice was not denied and that proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 did not assist the defence, while the presumption under section 118 supported issuance for consideration. Refusal of leave to defend was upheld and the summary decree stood affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>