<?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>2021 (3) TMI 1461 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458280</link>
    <description>Once execution and issuance of a cheque are proved, the presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act arise, and they can be displaced only by a probable defence supported by material evidence; a bare denial or unsupported statement is insufficient, so the presumption remained unrebutted. For vicarious liability in a cheque prosecution involving a firm, the firm must be arraigned as an accused before liability can be fastened on a partner; because the complaint proceeded only against the partner and not the firm, the prosecution was not maintainable. The appeal therefore failed and the acquittal was maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Oct 2024 19:52:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=774421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (3) TMI 1461 - UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458280</link>
      <description>Once execution and issuance of a cheque are proved, the presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act arise, and they can be displaced only by a probable defence supported by material evidence; a bare denial or unsupported statement is insufficient, so the presumption remained unrebutted. For vicarious liability in a cheque prosecution involving a firm, the firm must be arraigned as an accused before liability can be fastened on a partner; because the complaint proceeded only against the partner and not the firm, the prosecution was not maintainable. The appeal therefore failed and the acquittal was maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458280</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>