<?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 (9) TMI 592 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398473</link>
    <description>In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable and may be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, the accused denied liability from the reply notice stage and relied on the complainant&#039;s admissions that supporting invoices and an agreement were not produced. Although the cheque, dishonour memo and notice were on record, the complainant failed to prove the underlying legally enforceable debt with reliable evidence. The absence of corroborative documents, particularly in the asserted liquor transaction, weakened the claim of liability. The appellate acquittal was therefore left undisturbed and conviction was not restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2020 14:43:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=622457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 592 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398473</link>
      <description>In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable and may be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, the accused denied liability from the reply notice stage and relied on the complainant&#039;s admissions that supporting invoices and an agreement were not produced. Although the cheque, dishonour memo and notice were on record, the complainant failed to prove the underlying legally enforceable debt with reliable evidence. The absence of corroborative documents, particularly in the asserted liquor transaction, weakened the claim of liability. The appellate acquittal was therefore left undisturbed and conviction was not restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>