https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456068 A complaint under Section 138 filed in a firm's name through its authorised Branch Manager was held maintainable where the partnership deed, registration details and resolution showed proper authority; the stricter requirement of an explicit assertion of the representative's knowledge was not applied rigidly to a firm complaint, and cognizance was therefore valid. The accused also failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 on a preponderance of probabilities, as the cheque issuance, dishonour, demand notice and underlying liability were supported by oral and documentary evidence. Liability under Section 138 was consequently sustained, and the conviction was restored. en-us Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jun 2024 20:51:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456068 A complaint under Section 138 filed in a firm's name through its authorised Branch Manager was held maintainable where the partnership deed, registration details and resolution showed proper authority; the stricter requirement of an explicit assertion of the representative's knowledge was not applied rigidly to a firm complaint, and cognizance was therefore valid. The accused also failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 on a preponderance of probabilities, as the cheque issuance, dishonour, demand notice and underlying liability were supported by oral and documentary evidence. Liability under Section 138 was consequently sustained, and the conviction was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456068