<?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 (9) TMI 146 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411801</link>
    <description>Statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as duly served because it was sent to the correct address and received by the accused&#039;s wife, with deemed service supported by Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. On the cheque claim, the cheque and signature were admitted, dishonour for insufficiency of funds was proved, and the Section 139 presumption operated in favour of the complainant. As the accused failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence, the transaction and liability were accepted and the conviction under Section 138 was held justified; the acquittal was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2021 09:06:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654676" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 146 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411801</link>
      <description>Statutory notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as duly served because it was sent to the correct address and received by the accused&#039;s wife, with deemed service supported by Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. On the cheque claim, the cheque and signature were admitted, dishonour for insufficiency of funds was proved, and the Section 139 presumption operated in favour of the complainant. As the accused failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence, the transaction and liability were accepted and the conviction under Section 138 was held justified; the acquittal was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411801</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>