https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446229 Where the drawer admitted issuance and signature on the cheque, the Section 139 presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. A discrepancy between the flat numbers mentioned in the complaint and the agreement was treated only as a possible defence, not as a basis to conclude at the threshold that no liability existed. In the absence of material showing a probable defence or manifest mala fides, the High Court declined to exercise quashing jurisdiction. The cheque dishonour complaint and process were therefore not quashed and were left to trial. en-us Fri, 03 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Nov 2023 18:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446229 Where the drawer admitted issuance and signature on the cheque, the Section 139 presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. A discrepancy between the flat numbers mentioned in the complaint and the agreement was treated only as a possible defence, not as a basis to conclude at the threshold that no liability existed. In the absence of material showing a probable defence or manifest mala fides, the High Court declined to exercise quashing jurisdiction. The cheque dishonour complaint and process were therefore not quashed and were left to trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 03 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446229