https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398519 A signed cheque did not, by itself, justify recovery where the instrument showed suspicious alterations, including different inks and an added zero, and the defendant rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by showing the cheque had been handed over blank and the alleged loan was not proved. The suit was also held not to be barred under Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976, because the statutory bar applies only when the claimant is proved to be a registered and licensed money-lender advancing a loan covered by the Act. The decree dismissing the suit was sustained on merits, while the money-lenders finding was set aside. en-us Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:33:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398519 A signed cheque did not, by itself, justify recovery where the instrument showed suspicious alterations, including different inks and an added zero, and the defendant rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by showing the cheque had been handed over blank and the alleged loan was not proved. The suit was also held not to be barred under Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Registration of Money Lenders Act, 1976, because the statutory bar applies only when the claimant is proved to be a registered and licensed money-lender advancing a loan covered by the Act. The decree dismissing the suit was sustained on merits, while the money-lenders finding was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398519