<?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>2022 (2) TMI 725 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418474</link>
    <description>The appeal challenging the order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. The appellant failed to establish the guilt of the respondent, as the burden of proof shifted and the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the transaction. The court emphasized the importance of evidence, presumption, and burden of proof, ultimately upholding the principle of innocence until proven guilty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2022 07:32:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670512" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (2) TMI 725 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418474</link>
      <description>The appeal challenging the order of acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. The appellant failed to establish the guilt of the respondent, as the burden of proof shifted and the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the transaction. The court emphasized the importance of evidence, presumption, and burden of proof, ultimately upholding the principle of innocence until proven guilty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>