<?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>2023 (4) TMI 648 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436622</link>
    <description>Revisional interference in a cheque dishonour matter is confined to clear illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice, and a revisional court does not reappreciate concurrent findings merely to reach a different view. Once issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder that the cheque was issued for a lawful liability. The accused must rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities with credible evidence; a bare plea of misuse without support is insufficient. On the stated facts, the presumptions were not rebutted and the conviction and sentence were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2023 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (4) TMI 648 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436622</link>
      <description>Revisional interference in a cheque dishonour matter is confined to clear illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice, and a revisional court does not reappreciate concurrent findings merely to reach a different view. Once issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder that the cheque was issued for a lawful liability. The accused must rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities with credible evidence; a bare plea of misuse without support is insufficient. On the stated facts, the presumptions were not rebutted and the conviction and sentence were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436622</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>