https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404469 The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the complainant-Bank failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The cheque issued for a time-barred debt did not attract the penal provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The court also held that Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, was not applicable in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was confirmed. en-us Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:42:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404469 The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the complainant-Bank failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The cheque issued for a time-barred debt did not attract the penal provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The court also held that Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, was not applicable in this case. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was confirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404469