<?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>2023 (12) TMI 1432 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461589</link>
    <description>Execution of the cheque being admitted, the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt arose, and the accused had to rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. A defence of material alteration failed where the cheque was delivered as a signed blank cheque, because completion of its contents was authorised and did not render it void. The trial court had erred in treating the cheque as materially altered without properly applying the presumptions and the interaction between completion of an instrument and alteration. Interference with the acquittal was therefore warranted, and the conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act was restored with sentence and compensation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2025 21:43:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=814328" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 1432 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461589</link>
      <description>Execution of the cheque being admitted, the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt arose, and the accused had to rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. A defence of material alteration failed where the cheque was delivered as a signed blank cheque, because completion of its contents was authorised and did not render it void. The trial court had erred in treating the cheque as materially altered without properly applying the presumptions and the interaction between completion of an instrument and alteration. Interference with the acquittal was therefore warranted, and the conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act was restored with sentence and compensation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>