<?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>2004 (8) TMI 771 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310779</link>
    <description>The HC allowed the plaintiff&#039;s appeal, overturning the II Additional District Judge&#039;s decision and reinstating the trial Court&#039;s judgment. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, confirming that the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of consideration for the dishonored cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The HC held that the cheques were issued for the price of goods sold, not as security for a loan, and ordered the defendants to pay the costs to the appellant while bearing their own expenses.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Nov 2023 18:12:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=732089" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 771 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310779</link>
      <description>The HC allowed the plaintiff&#039;s appeal, overturning the II Additional District Judge&#039;s decision and reinstating the trial Court&#039;s judgment. The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, confirming that the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of consideration for the dishonored cheques under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The HC held that the cheques were issued for the price of goods sold, not as security for a loan, and ordered the defendants to pay the costs to the appellant while bearing their own expenses.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>