https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390768 Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Karnataka HC held that lack of a money-lending licence does not defeat a prosecution under Section 138, and that a cheque issued towards a time-barred debt can still sustain liability. Once issuance of the cheque in relation to a debt was proved, the defence of no enforceable debt was not accepted in the manner urged. The trial court's contrary view was held erroneous, the acquittal was set aside, and the accused was convicted under Section 138. en-us Wed, 04 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jan 2020 17:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390768 Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Karnataka HC held that lack of a money-lending licence does not defeat a prosecution under Section 138, and that a cheque issued towards a time-barred debt can still sustain liability. Once issuance of the cheque in relation to a debt was proved, the defence of no enforceable debt was not accepted in the manner urged. The trial court's contrary view was held erroneous, the acquittal was set aside, and the accused was convicted under Section 138. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390768