<?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>2006 (7) TMI 733 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299602</link>
    <description>Registered-post notice sent to the correct address was deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act when the postal article was returned with intimation and non-claim, and a bare denial did not rebut service. Once execution of the cheques was proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(b) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The defence that the cheques were only security cheques was unsupported, and the accused failed to rebut liability on a preponderance of probabilities. The conviction under Section 138 was sustained and the connected acquittal was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 May 2024 17:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=664818" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (7) TMI 733 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299602</link>
      <description>Registered-post notice sent to the correct address was deemed served under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act when the postal article was returned with intimation and non-claim, and a bare denial did not rebut service. Once execution of the cheques was proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(b) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The defence that the cheques were only security cheques was unsupported, and the accused failed to rebut liability on a preponderance of probabilities. The conviction under Section 138 was sustained and the connected acquittal was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299602</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>