https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296332 A notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not invalid merely because it omits the detailed nature of the underlying transaction or debt; the statute requires a written demand for payment, not disclosure of further particulars. The presumption under Section 139 was rebutted on the facts because the complainant's version was inconsistent and the evidence did not establish source of funds, the alleged transaction, or capacity to advance the amount, while the defence raised a probable explanation for issuance of the cheque. Once rebutted, the complainant failed to prove consideration. The objection based on Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was also rejected, and the acquittal was sustained. en-us Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:01:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296332 A notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not invalid merely because it omits the detailed nature of the underlying transaction or debt; the statute requires a written demand for payment, not disclosure of further particulars. The presumption under Section 139 was rebutted on the facts because the complainant's version was inconsistent and the evidence did not establish source of funds, the alleged transaction, or capacity to advance the amount, while the defence raised a probable explanation for issuance of the cheque. Once rebutted, the complainant failed to prove consideration. The objection based on Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was also rejected, and the acquittal was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296332