<?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>2011 (11) TMI 866 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301698</link>
    <description>A post-dated cheque issued as security for an ascertained liability can still attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if the statutory ingredients are otherwise satisfied. The label &quot;security cheque&quot; does not by itself exclude criminal liability, because the presumption under Section 139 applies unless rebutted in trial. At the quashing stage, disputed questions about the existence of liability are not to be decided. Non-disclosure of the MOU was also not fatal, since the complaint contained the essential averments of issuance, presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment, so quashing was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2022 11:28:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=676219" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 866 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301698</link>
      <description>A post-dated cheque issued as security for an ascertained liability can still attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if the statutory ingredients are otherwise satisfied. The label &quot;security cheque&quot; does not by itself exclude criminal liability, because the presumption under Section 139 applies unless rebutted in trial. At the quashing stage, disputed questions about the existence of liability are not to be decided. Non-disclosure of the MOU was also not fatal, since the complaint contained the essential averments of issuance, presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment, so quashing was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301698</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>