<?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>2005 (6) TMI 575 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304207</link>
    <description>The court held that the cheque was issued as security, not for an existing debt, thus not falling under Section 138. The respondent rebutted the presumption under Section 139. The High Court upheld the acquittal, stating the lower court&#039;s findings were not perverse or unreasonable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:37:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690582" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 575 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304207</link>
      <description>The court held that the cheque was issued as security, not for an existing debt, thus not falling under Section 138. The respondent rebutted the presumption under Section 139. The High Court upheld the acquittal, stating the lower court&#039;s findings were not perverse or unreasonable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>