<?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 772 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312828</link>
    <description>A cheque issued towards unpaid sale consideration under a subsisting agreement of sale, especially where possession had been delivered, could fall within a legally enforceable debt or other liability for section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the statutory presumption under section 139 operated in favour of the holder unless rebutted. Quashing was also refused where some complainants were not strict payees or holders in due course, because they were shown to be owners entitled to the consideration, and the participation of other petitioners in the underlying transaction prima facie attracted extended liability. Limitation was not decided at the threshold, as the notice date was unclear and could be examined by the trial court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2024 14:57:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=746434" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 772 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312828</link>
      <description>A cheque issued towards unpaid sale consideration under a subsisting agreement of sale, especially where possession had been delivered, could fall within a legally enforceable debt or other liability for section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the statutory presumption under section 139 operated in favour of the holder unless rebutted. Quashing was also refused where some complainants were not strict payees or holders in due course, because they were shown to be owners entitled to the consideration, and the participation of other petitioners in the underlying transaction prima facie attracted extended liability. Limitation was not decided at the threshold, as the notice date was unclear and could be examined by the trial court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312828</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>