https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370586 Concurrent findings on the alleged bar under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act were treated as factual, because whether the plaintiff carried on money-lending business depended on evidence; in second appeal, no substantial question of law arose to reopen that issue. On the cheque claim, admission of issuance attracted the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The defendant's contradictory defence and lack of convincing proof failed to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, so the decree in favour of the plaintiff remained undisturbed and the second appeal failed. en-us Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:47:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370586 Concurrent findings on the alleged bar under the Punjab Registration of Money Lenders Act were treated as factual, because whether the plaintiff carried on money-lending business depended on evidence; in second appeal, no substantial question of law arose to reopen that issue. On the cheque claim, admission of issuance attracted the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The defendant's contradictory defence and lack of convincing proof failed to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, so the decree in favour of the plaintiff remained undisturbed and the second appeal failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370586