<?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>2020 (1) TMI 553 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390940</link>
    <description>The court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as the complainant failed to prove the debt and liability of Rs. 5.50 lakh. The accused successfully raised a probable defense, shifting the burden back to the complainant, who did not meet it. The lower courts&#039; judgments were deemed perverse for overlooking these crucial aspects, leading to the revision being allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2020 20:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600337" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 553 - ORISSA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390940</link>
      <description>The court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as the complainant failed to prove the debt and liability of Rs. 5.50 lakh. The accused successfully raised a probable defense, shifting the burden back to the complainant, who did not meet it. The lower courts&#039; judgments were deemed perverse for overlooking these crucial aspects, leading to the revision being allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390940</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>