<?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>Accused Successfully Rebuts Presumption of Liability in Cheque Dishonor Case u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61226</link>
    <description>Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient fund - preponderance of probabilities - In view of such statements made by the complainant at the time of her cross-examination, there was obvious reason for the trial court to come to a finding that the complainant has failed to establish her case that she had any business relation with the accused - it is settled proposition of law that for rebutting the fact that might lead to the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the standard of proof is of preponderance of probabilities, which the accused in the present case has been able to rebut. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2022 12:03:09 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2022 12:03:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Accused Successfully Rebuts Presumption of Liability in Cheque Dishonor Case u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61226</link>
      <description>Dishonor of Cheque - insufficient fund - preponderance of probabilities - In view of such statements made by the complainant at the time of her cross-examination, there was obvious reason for the trial court to come to a finding that the complainant has failed to establish her case that she had any business relation with the accused - it is settled proposition of law that for rebutting the fact that might lead to the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, the standard of proof is of preponderance of probabilities, which the accused in the present case has been able to rebut. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2022 12:03:09 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61226</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>