<?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 (6) TMI 958 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409062</link>
    <description>A signed cheque and acknowledgment receipt for a loan trigger the statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused must rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities with reliable material. Mere denial, unsupported allegations of a different transaction, non-examination of a material witness, or asserted tax irregularities are insufficient to displace that presumption. The text also explains that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot be used as a second appeal; interference is justified only where findings are perverse, illegal, or cause miscarriage of justice. It states that concurrent findings based on evidence and the acknowledgment receipt will not ordinarily be disturbed in revision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2021 10:04:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 958 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409062</link>
      <description>A signed cheque and acknowledgment receipt for a loan trigger the statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused must rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities with reliable material. Mere denial, unsupported allegations of a different transaction, non-examination of a material witness, or asserted tax irregularities are insufficient to displace that presumption. The text also explains that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot be used as a second appeal; interference is justified only where findings are perverse, illegal, or cause miscarriage of justice. It states that concurrent findings based on evidence and the acknowledgment receipt will not ordinarily be disturbed in revision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409062</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>