https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384823 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained maintainable against the signatory of the cheque even though the proprietary concern was not separately arrayed, because a proprietary concern is not treated like a company or firm for Section 141 purposes and the cheque, rubber stamp, sale deed and admissions linked the transaction to the accused. The accused also failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 by asserting that the cheque was only a security cheque and that payment had been made in cash, as the sale deed recorded payment by cheque and no cogent proof of cash payment, cheque misuse, stop-payment instruction, or complaint was produced. The conviction and reduced sentence were upheld. en-us Fri, 16 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Aug 2019 06:36:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384823 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained maintainable against the signatory of the cheque even though the proprietary concern was not separately arrayed, because a proprietary concern is not treated like a company or firm for Section 141 purposes and the cheque, rubber stamp, sale deed and admissions linked the transaction to the accused. The accused also failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 by asserting that the cheque was only a security cheque and that payment had been made in cash, as the sale deed recorded payment by cheque and no cogent proof of cash payment, cheque misuse, stop-payment instruction, or complaint was produced. The conviction and reduced sentence were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384823