<?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 (7) TMI 275 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774207</link>
    <description>A cheque attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act only if it is issued in discharge of an existing legally enforceable debt or liability. Although the signatures were admitted and the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose, they were rebuttable on a preponderance of probability. The complainant failed to prove the alleged agreement to sell, the cash component of payment, or the full claimed liability of Rs. 1.5 crore; the evidence supported only a liability of Rs. 75 lakh. As the cheque exceeded the proved liability, it was not shown to have been issued for the existing debt, and the complaint was rightly dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2025 08:47:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=833896" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 275 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774207</link>
      <description>A cheque attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act only if it is issued in discharge of an existing legally enforceable debt or liability. Although the signatures were admitted and the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose, they were rebuttable on a preponderance of probability. The complainant failed to prove the alleged agreement to sell, the cash component of payment, or the full claimed liability of Rs. 1.5 crore; the evidence supported only a liability of Rs. 75 lakh. As the cheque exceeded the proved liability, it was not shown to have been issued for the existing debt, and the complaint was rightly dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 28 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774207</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>