<?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 (5) TMI 69 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421809</link>
    <description>A cheque issued as security can still attract liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act when the underlying loan has matured and remains unpaid. The complainant&#039;s loan agreement and supporting evidence were treated as showing a legally recoverable debt, while the accused failed to produce material of repayment or any circumstance showing that the cheque had not become enforceable. The challenge to the complainant&#039;s financial capacity also failed, as business activity and vehicle ownership supported the lending version and the defence did not rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. On that reasoning, dishonour was treated as constituting liability and the acquittal was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 May 2022 08:21:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (5) TMI 69 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421809</link>
      <description>A cheque issued as security can still attract liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act when the underlying loan has matured and remains unpaid. The complainant&#039;s loan agreement and supporting evidence were treated as showing a legally recoverable debt, while the accused failed to produce material of repayment or any circumstance showing that the cheque had not become enforceable. The challenge to the complainant&#039;s financial capacity also failed, as business activity and vehicle ownership supported the lending version and the defence did not rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. On that reasoning, dishonour was treated as constituting liability and the acquittal was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>