<?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 (6) TMI 748 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772635</link>
    <description>Kerala HC dismissed a revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds. The petitioner argued the cheque was issued for a time-barred debt, making Section 138 inapplicable. The court found no material irregularity or legal impropriety in lower courts&#039; decisions. Following established SC precedent, the HC declined to reappreciate evidence already considered by the Trial Court and Sessions Judge. The court held that findings were neither unreasonable nor erroneous, evidence was properly evaluated, and the sentence was appropriate. The revision petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2025 07:21:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=828547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 748 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772635</link>
      <description>Kerala HC dismissed a revision petition challenging conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of cheque due to insufficient funds. The petitioner argued the cheque was issued for a time-barred debt, making Section 138 inapplicable. The court found no material irregularity or legal impropriety in lower courts&#039; decisions. Following established SC precedent, the HC declined to reappreciate evidence already considered by the Trial Court and Sessions Judge. The court held that findings were neither unreasonable nor erroneous, evidence was properly evaluated, and the sentence was appropriate. The revision petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772635</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>