<?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>1993 (7) TMI 367 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301705</link>
    <description>Closure of the drawer&#039;s bank account before presentation does not, by itself, take a dishonoured cheque outside Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, because the provision covers a cheque drawn on an account that existed when issued but was later closed so it could not be honoured. The object of the section is to preserve cheque credibility and prevent drawers from defeating payment by closing accounts after issuing cheques. The presumption under Section 118(b) as to the date of drawing is rebuttable and does not conclusively fix the cheque date as the drawing date. On the admitted facts, the cheque was post-dated and could still have been issued when the account was live, so quashing was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2022 13:18:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=676237" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (7) TMI 367 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301705</link>
      <description>Closure of the drawer&#039;s bank account before presentation does not, by itself, take a dishonoured cheque outside Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, because the provision covers a cheque drawn on an account that existed when issued but was later closed so it could not be honoured. The object of the section is to preserve cheque credibility and prevent drawers from defeating payment by closing accounts after issuing cheques. The presumption under Section 118(b) as to the date of drawing is rebuttable and does not conclusively fix the cheque date as the drawing date. On the admitted facts, the cheque was post-dated and could still have been issued when the account was live, so quashing was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301705</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>