<?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 1348 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773235</link>
    <description>Once the drawer admits the cheque and signature, the presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise in favour of the holder. Those presumptions are displaced only by a probable defence proved on the preponderance of probabilities. On the facts discussed, the accused&#039;s plea that the cheques were security cheques, that liability had been discharged, and that the complainant was an unregistered moneylender was not proved; the evidence did not establish repayment, and the dishonour and notice requirements stood satisfied. The conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:34:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=830420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (6) TMI 1348 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773235</link>
      <description>Once the drawer admits the cheque and signature, the presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise in favour of the holder. Those presumptions are displaced only by a probable defence proved on the preponderance of probabilities. On the facts discussed, the accused&#039;s plea that the cheques were security cheques, that liability had been discharged, and that the complainant was an unregistered moneylender was not proved; the evidence did not establish repayment, and the dishonour and notice requirements stood satisfied. The conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773235</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>