<?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 (10) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779267</link>
    <description>Valid service of the statutory demand notice is a foundational precondition to prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act arises only when the notice is properly addressed, prepaid and posted, while Section 114 of the Evidence Act permits only a rebuttable presumption based on proved facts. On the facts noted, one acknowledgment was signed by a 15-year-old girl without proof of authority or family connection, and the other lacked a complete address. Mere dispatch of the notice was therefore insufficient, and the requirement of duly served statutory notice was not satisfied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Oct 2025 08:30:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=855966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (10) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779267</link>
      <description>Valid service of the statutory demand notice is a foundational precondition to prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act arises only when the notice is properly addressed, prepaid and posted, while Section 114 of the Evidence Act permits only a rebuttable presumption based on proved facts. On the facts noted, one acknowledgment was signed by a 15-year-old girl without proof of authority or family connection, and the other lacked a complete address. Mere dispatch of the notice was therefore insufficient, and the requirement of duly served statutory notice was not satisfied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=779267</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>