<?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>2018 (12) TMI 1903 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297117</link>
    <description>A complaint by one partner of a registered partnership firm is maintainable where the other partner has authorised conduct of the business and prosecution of proceedings. In a cheque dishonour case, the complainant may establish a legally enforceable debt and lending capacity through licence, partnership deed, cash book, ledger and related records; a bank balance in one account does not by itself negate capacity to lend. The accused must rebut the statutory presumption with cogent evidence, and a bare claim that the cheque was only a security cheque or that an old printed year appears on the leaf is insufficient. The note states that the presumption remained unrebutted and the prosecution case was accepted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2021 23:18:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=653357" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1903 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297117</link>
      <description>A complaint by one partner of a registered partnership firm is maintainable where the other partner has authorised conduct of the business and prosecution of proceedings. In a cheque dishonour case, the complainant may establish a legally enforceable debt and lending capacity through licence, partnership deed, cash book, ledger and related records; a bank balance in one account does not by itself negate capacity to lend. The accused must rebut the statutory presumption with cogent evidence, and a bare claim that the cheque was only a security cheque or that an old printed year appears on the leaf is insufficient. The note states that the presumption remained unrebutted and the prosecution case was accepted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297117</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>