https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398518 A company representative was found duly authorised to depose and act for the complainant because the board resolution expressly empowered him to sign papers, execute affidavits and give evidence, and the challenge to his authority lacked support. On the cheque dishonour claim, the court found that supply of goods on credit, an outstanding balance, issuance and dishonour of cheques, and non-payment after notice established liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Once cheque issuance was proved, the Section 139 presumption applied to the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the accused failed to rebut it. en-us Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:28:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398518 A company representative was found duly authorised to depose and act for the complainant because the board resolution expressly empowered him to sign papers, execute affidavits and give evidence, and the challenge to his authority lacked support. On the cheque dishonour claim, the court found that supply of goods on credit, an outstanding balance, issuance and dishonour of cheques, and non-payment after notice established liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Once cheque issuance was proved, the Section 139 presumption applied to the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the accused failed to rebut it. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398518