https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778435 Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not to be quashed in inherent jurisdiction where the drawer raised disputed factual defences about cheque presentation, termination of the underlying agreement, and alleged part payments. Statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the cheque holder, and stop-payment instructions did not by themselves defeat the complaint at the threshold. Questions whether liability had ceased, whether part payments required endorsement, and whether limitation issues were cured were treated as matters for evidence at trial, not grounds for pre-trial interference. The complaint was therefore treated as disclosing a triable prosecution. en-us Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Sep 2025 08:31:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778435 Proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not to be quashed in inherent jurisdiction where the drawer raised disputed factual defences about cheque presentation, termination of the underlying agreement, and alleged part payments. Statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the cheque holder, and stop-payment instructions did not by themselves defeat the complaint at the threshold. Questions whether liability had ceased, whether part payments required endorsement, and whether limitation issues were cured were treated as matters for evidence at trial, not grounds for pre-trial interference. The complaint was therefore treated as disclosing a triable prosecution. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 04 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778435