<?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>2008 (11) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287099</link>
    <description>A certified bank statement under the Bankers&#039; Books Evidence Act creates only a rebuttable presumption and does not by itself conclusively prove liability. When debit entries are specifically disputed, the bank must produce supporting evidence such as the underlying ledger or other proof of the transactions. Here, the bank witness had no personal knowledge of how the statement was prepared, the ledger was not produced, the interest entries did not match the loan terms, and the alleged consolidated interest debit after closure of the account was not explained satisfactorily. The disputed debit entries were therefore treated as unproved, and the decree against the guarantor could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2020 12:22:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=608555" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 734 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287099</link>
      <description>A certified bank statement under the Bankers&#039; Books Evidence Act creates only a rebuttable presumption and does not by itself conclusively prove liability. When debit entries are specifically disputed, the bank must produce supporting evidence such as the underlying ledger or other proof of the transactions. Here, the bank witness had no personal knowledge of how the statement was prepared, the ledger was not produced, the interest entries did not match the loan terms, and the alleged consolidated interest debit after closure of the account was not explained satisfactorily. The disputed debit entries were therefore treated as unproved, and the decree against the guarantor could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287099</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>