<?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 (10) TMI 288 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413236</link>
    <description>A cheque issued as part of the original loan arrangement did not attract liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act where the complainant failed to prove a subsisting legally enforceable debt. The court noted that the loan amount, disbursement date, and post-instalment reconciliation were not clearly established, the account statement was inadequate, and the witness&#039;s authority was doubtful. As the cheque was linked to the loan transaction and not shown to have been issued in discharge of an existing liability, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 were rebutted. The acquittal was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Oct 2021 12:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 288 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413236</link>
      <description>A cheque issued as part of the original loan arrangement did not attract liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act where the complainant failed to prove a subsisting legally enforceable debt. The court noted that the loan amount, disbursement date, and post-instalment reconciliation were not clearly established, the account statement was inadequate, and the witness&#039;s authority was doubtful. As the cheque was linked to the loan transaction and not shown to have been issued in discharge of an existing liability, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 were rebutted. The acquittal was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>