<?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>2025 (5) TMI 1280 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771008</link>
    <description>Delhi HC dismissed appeals challenging acquittal in cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act. Court found accused successfully rebutted statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139. Trial court correctly observed property sale price of Rs. 4.5 lakhs was unrealistic, mortgage arrangement seemed more credible. Complainant failed to explain receipt of Rs. 3 lakhs payments or why cheques totaled Rs. 6.5 lakhs against alleged debt of Rs. 4.5 lakhs. Settlement between parties during trial did not constitute admission of debt; complainant still required to prove foundational facts. No perversity found in acquittal order warranting interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 08:53:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=822915" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1280 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771008</link>
      <description>Delhi HC dismissed appeals challenging acquittal in cheque dishonour case under Section 138 NI Act. Court found accused successfully rebutted statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139. Trial court correctly observed property sale price of Rs. 4.5 lakhs was unrealistic, mortgage arrangement seemed more credible. Complainant failed to explain receipt of Rs. 3 lakhs payments or why cheques totaled Rs. 6.5 lakhs against alleged debt of Rs. 4.5 lakhs. Settlement between parties during trial did not constitute admission of debt; complainant still required to prove foundational facts. No perversity found in acquittal order warranting interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jan 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>