<?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 1443 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771171</link>
    <description>Admitted execution of a cheque and related agreement triggers the statutory presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, placing the burden on the accused to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. Revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure is confined to correcting patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity, and does not extend to a full reappreciation of evidence. Where the defence evidence is found untrustworthy and insufficient to show that the cheque was only a security instrument or that the agreement was executed under threat, the statutory presumptions remain unrebutted and the complainant need not separately prove financial capacity.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 May 2025 18:38:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=823557" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1443 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771171</link>
      <description>Admitted execution of a cheque and related agreement triggers the statutory presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, placing the burden on the accused to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. Revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure is confined to correcting patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity, and does not extend to a full reappreciation of evidence. Where the defence evidence is found untrustworthy and insufficient to show that the cheque was only a security instrument or that the agreement was executed under threat, the statutory presumptions remain unrebutted and the complainant need not separately prove financial capacity.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771171</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>