<?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>2024 (6) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754069</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed a petition seeking leave to appeal in a dishonored cheque case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner failed to establish that he had advanced a loan to the respondent or possessed the wherewithal to lend the claimed amount, merely asserting funds came from his wife&#039;s property sale without supporting evidence. The respondent successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 by proving through witness testimony and documentary evidence that the cheques were not issued to the petitioner. The court found no legally enforceable debt existed and affirmed the trial court&#039;s acquittal, ruling the petition was futile.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Jun 2024 13:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 676 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754069</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed a petition seeking leave to appeal in a dishonored cheque case under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner failed to establish that he had advanced a loan to the respondent or possessed the wherewithal to lend the claimed amount, merely asserting funds came from his wife&#039;s property sale without supporting evidence. The respondent successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 by proving through witness testimony and documentary evidence that the cheques were not issued to the petitioner. The court found no legally enforceable debt existed and affirmed the trial court&#039;s acquittal, ruling the petition was futile.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754069</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>