https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757686 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, admission of the cheque signature keeps the statutory presumption under Section 139 alive unless the accused rebuts it with a probable defence supported by cogent material; inconsistent explanations and unsupported allegations of coercion or repayment are insufficient. Where a cheque is issued by an authorised partner on behalf of a partnership firm, the non-signatory partner cannot avoid liability merely because he did not sign the instrument. Defects in the return memo, non-service of notice, or limitation do not defeat the complaint when dishonour is otherwise proved, notice is duly dispatched, and the complaint is filed within time. The discussion affirms firm liability and the evidentiary burden in Section 138 cases. en-us Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Aug 2024 17:28:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757686 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, admission of the cheque signature keeps the statutory presumption under Section 139 alive unless the accused rebuts it with a probable defence supported by cogent material; inconsistent explanations and unsupported allegations of coercion or repayment are insufficient. Where a cheque is issued by an authorised partner on behalf of a partnership firm, the non-signatory partner cannot avoid liability merely because he did not sign the instrument. Defects in the return memo, non-service of notice, or limitation do not defeat the complaint when dishonour is otherwise proved, notice is duly dispatched, and the complaint is filed within time. The discussion affirms firm liability and the evidentiary burden in Section 138 cases. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757686