https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410462 A cheque dishonour complaint failed because the complainant did not prove that the cheque was issued for a legally recoverable debt. Only the cheque, bank endorsement, notice and acknowledgment were produced; no loan documents or repayment records supported the alleged liability. The accused's plea that the cheque had been issued as security and that the claim was time-barred was treated as a probable defence, rebutting the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant then failed to prove enforceable debt by further credible evidence. The complaint also failed because the witness examined was not the person authorised by the society's resolution, so his evidence was unauthorised and could not be relied upon. en-us Fri, 16 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Aug 2021 09:05:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410462 A cheque dishonour complaint failed because the complainant did not prove that the cheque was issued for a legally recoverable debt. Only the cheque, bank endorsement, notice and acknowledgment were produced; no loan documents or repayment records supported the alleged liability. The accused's plea that the cheque had been issued as security and that the claim was time-barred was treated as a probable defence, rebutting the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant then failed to prove enforceable debt by further credible evidence. The complaint also failed because the witness examined was not the person authorised by the society's resolution, so his evidence was unauthorised and could not be relied upon. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410462