<?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 (8) TMI 684 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397741</link>
    <description>Proof of execution of a cheque attracts the statutory presumption of consideration and legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused must rebut that presumption by raising a probable defence. The defence of a hire purchase arrangement and a security cheque was held insufficient, as dishonour for insufficiency of funds, timely notice, and non-payment remained unshaken; the conviction was therefore sustained. Taking account of the accused&#039;s advanced age, bedridden condition, and lack of property, the Court modified the sentence and substituted imprisonment with a fine and default sentence, with the amount directed to be paid to the complainant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2020 11:39:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=620802" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 684 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397741</link>
      <description>Proof of execution of a cheque attracts the statutory presumption of consideration and legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused must rebut that presumption by raising a probable defence. The defence of a hire purchase arrangement and a security cheque was held insufficient, as dishonour for insufficiency of funds, timely notice, and non-payment remained unshaken; the conviction was therefore sustained. Taking account of the accused&#039;s advanced age, bedridden condition, and lack of property, the Court modified the sentence and substituted imprisonment with a fine and default sentence, with the amount directed to be paid to the complainant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>