<?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>Dishonored Cheque Case: Defendant&#039;s Inconsistent Claims Fail as Section 118 NI Act Presumptions Remain Unrebutted</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86234</link>
    <description>Defendant&#039;s dishonored cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- led to legal proceedings where HC upheld trial court&#039;s verdict favoring plaintiff. Court found plaintiff&#039;s substantive evidence regarding transaction and cheque issuance credible through PW1&#039;s testimony. Defendant&#039;s inconsistent claims - initially alleging misuse of blank signed papers, later denying signature - lacked evidentiary support. HC affirmed presumptions under Section 118 of NI Act favoring plaintiff remained unrebutted. Defendant&#039;s remand plea rejected as court held remand cannot be granted merely to fill evidential gaps. Appeal dismissed with costs awarded to plaintiff/respondent, confirming trial court&#039;s decree.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 07:49:45 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 07:49:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=803894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Dishonored Cheque Case: Defendant&#039;s Inconsistent Claims Fail as Section 118 NI Act Presumptions Remain Unrebutted</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86234</link>
      <description>Defendant&#039;s dishonored cheque for Rs.3,00,000/- led to legal proceedings where HC upheld trial court&#039;s verdict favoring plaintiff. Court found plaintiff&#039;s substantive evidence regarding transaction and cheque issuance credible through PW1&#039;s testimony. Defendant&#039;s inconsistent claims - initially alleging misuse of blank signed papers, later denying signature - lacked evidentiary support. HC affirmed presumptions under Section 118 of NI Act favoring plaintiff remained unrebutted. Defendant&#039;s remand plea rejected as court held remand cannot be granted merely to fill evidential gaps. Appeal dismissed with costs awarded to plaintiff/respondent, confirming trial court&#039;s decree.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 07:49:45 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=86234</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>