<?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 (4) TMI 740 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406624</link>
    <description>Service of a dishonour notice by registered post to the correct address attracts a presumption of delivery under the General Clauses Act and Evidence Act. Return of the postal cover as unclaimed does not, by itself, defeat service, and dispatch under certificate of posting is not legally required. Where cheque issuance, signature, timely presentation, dishonour for insufficient funds, and underlying liability are established, the accused must provide convincing rebuttal evidence to displace the presumption arising from the cheque transaction. Failure to rebut that presumption supports liability for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2021 20:33:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=642193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (4) TMI 740 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406624</link>
      <description>Service of a dishonour notice by registered post to the correct address attracts a presumption of delivery under the General Clauses Act and Evidence Act. Return of the postal cover as unclaimed does not, by itself, defeat service, and dispatch under certificate of posting is not legally required. Where cheque issuance, signature, timely presentation, dishonour for insufficient funds, and underlying liability are established, the accused must provide convincing rebuttal evidence to displace the presumption arising from the cheque transaction. Failure to rebut that presumption supports liability for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=406624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>