<?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>2026 (5) TMI 258 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791056</link>
    <description>A cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation to sustain liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Where the drawer makes part payment after the cheque is drawn but before encashment, the liability is reduced and the payment must be endorsed on the instrument under Section 56 so that only the balance amount is negotiable. If the cheque is later presented for the full sum without that endorsement, it does not represent the enforceable debt. On the stated facts, part payments were made before re-presentation, and the acquittal was justified because Section 138 was not attracted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900197" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 258 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791056</link>
      <description>A cheque must represent a legally enforceable debt on the date of maturity or presentation to sustain liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Where the drawer makes part payment after the cheque is drawn but before encashment, the liability is reduced and the payment must be endorsed on the instrument under Section 56 so that only the balance amount is negotiable. If the cheque is later presented for the full sum without that endorsement, it does not represent the enforceable debt. On the stated facts, part payments were made before re-presentation, and the acquittal was justified because Section 138 was not attracted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791056</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>