<?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>2016 (11) TMI 1706 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299853</link>
    <description>Where the drawer admits the signature on a cheque, liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not avoided merely because the complainant filled in the remaining particulars. A signed and delivered incomplete cheque may be completed by the holder under section 20, and the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 continue to operate unless rebutted by credible evidence. On the facts noted, the drawer failed to give a consistent explanation or reliable proof to displace those presumptions, and the surrounding transaction supported issuance towards an existing liability. The conviction under section 138 was restored, the acquittal was set aside, and the sentence was modified by reducing the substantive imprisonment while directing compensation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2022 08:53:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1706 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299853</link>
      <description>Where the drawer admits the signature on a cheque, liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act is not avoided merely because the complainant filled in the remaining particulars. A signed and delivered incomplete cheque may be completed by the holder under section 20, and the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 continue to operate unless rebutted by credible evidence. On the facts noted, the drawer failed to give a consistent explanation or reliable proof to displace those presumptions, and the surrounding transaction supported issuance towards an existing liability. The conviction under section 138 was restored, the acquittal was set aside, and the sentence was modified by reducing the substantive imprisonment while directing compensation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299853</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>