<?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 (11) TMI 1122 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446231</link>
    <description>Karnataka HC dismissed revision petition in dishonour of cheque case. Petitioner failed to rebut statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act after cheques with his signatures were produced. Despite claiming cheques were issued to complainant&#039;s son for chit transaction and denying proper notice service, petitioner provided no documentary evidence or substantial explanation. Trial Court and First Appellate Court correctly appreciated oral and documentary evidence including credit bills. Court found no grounds for exercising revisional jurisdiction as lower courts properly considered all material evidence and no legal error occurred.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2023 07:31:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=733243" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (11) TMI 1122 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446231</link>
      <description>Karnataka HC dismissed revision petition in dishonour of cheque case. Petitioner failed to rebut statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act after cheques with his signatures were produced. Despite claiming cheques were issued to complainant&#039;s son for chit transaction and denying proper notice service, petitioner provided no documentary evidence or substantial explanation. Trial Court and First Appellate Court correctly appreciated oral and documentary evidence including credit bills. Court found no grounds for exercising revisional jurisdiction as lower courts properly considered all material evidence and no legal error occurred.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>