https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770658 In a Section 138 NI Act complaint arising from a sole proprietorship, non-arraying the firm separately did not vitiate the proceedings because a sole proprietorship has no separate juristic identity distinct from its proprietor. Defences that the cheques were security cheques, that no legally enforceable debt existed, and that the underlying contract had been terminated were held to raise disputed factual issues for trial. At the summoning stage, compliance with the statutory sequence of cheque issuance, dishonour, notice, and complaint supported continuation of proceedings, and the presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the cheque holder. en-us Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 May 2025 07:32:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770658 In a Section 138 NI Act complaint arising from a sole proprietorship, non-arraying the firm separately did not vitiate the proceedings because a sole proprietorship has no separate juristic identity distinct from its proprietor. Defences that the cheques were security cheques, that no legally enforceable debt existed, and that the underlying contract had been terminated were held to raise disputed factual issues for trial. At the summoning stage, compliance with the statutory sequence of cheque issuance, dishonour, notice, and complaint supported continuation of proceedings, and the presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the cheque holder. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 07 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770658