https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415588 Admission of the cheque and signature, together with dishonour for insufficiency of funds, triggered the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. Although that presumption is rebuttable, rebuttal requires evidence. A defence that the cheque was only a security cheque, or that payment had already been made, raised disputed questions of fact that could not be resolved in a petition under Section 482 CrPC without trial. The complaint and the order issuing process were therefore sustained, and quashing was not warranted. en-us Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Dec 2021 08:36:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415588 Admission of the cheque and signature, together with dishonour for insufficiency of funds, triggered the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. Although that presumption is rebuttable, rebuttal requires evidence. A defence that the cheque was only a security cheque, or that payment had already been made, raised disputed questions of fact that could not be resolved in a petition under Section 482 CrPC without trial. The complaint and the order issuing process were therefore sustained, and quashing was not warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Jul 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415588