<?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 405 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774337</link>
    <description>Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, repeated presentation of the same cheque and issuance of a later notice are permissible, and a prosecution remains maintainable if the Section 138 requirements are met. Admitted issuance and signature on the cheque raise presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability, and those presumptions are not displaced merely by a security-cheque plea or by the complainant filling in the particulars without supporting evidence. Revisional interference with conviction, compensation and default sentence is limited to patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error; the sentence and compensation were therefore left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2025 08:36:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=834399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 405 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774337</link>
      <description>Under the Negotiable Instruments Act, repeated presentation of the same cheque and issuance of a later notice are permissible, and a prosecution remains maintainable if the Section 138 requirements are met. Admitted issuance and signature on the cheque raise presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability, and those presumptions are not displaced merely by a security-cheque plea or by the complainant filling in the particulars without supporting evidence. Revisional interference with conviction, compensation and default sentence is limited to patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error; the sentence and compensation were therefore left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=774337</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>