<?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>2021 (3) TMI 569 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405241</link>
    <description>In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 arise once cheque execution is admitted, but they remain rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused may rely on the complainant&#039;s own materials and surrounding circumstances, without entering the witness box, and a signed blank cheque does not by itself establish liability. Here, the complainant failed to prove financial capacity to advance the asserted amount, and the supporting materials were unsubstantiated. The defence therefore created a probable doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the presumption stood rebutted; the acquittal was liable to be affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2021 08:38:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=638912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 569 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405241</link>
      <description>In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 arise once cheque execution is admitted, but they remain rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused may rely on the complainant&#039;s own materials and surrounding circumstances, without entering the witness box, and a signed blank cheque does not by itself establish liability. Here, the complainant failed to prove financial capacity to advance the asserted amount, and the supporting materials were unsubstantiated. The defence therefore created a probable doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the presumption stood rebutted; the acquittal was liable to be affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>