<?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 747 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791545</link>
    <description>A voluntarily signed cheque handed over in the course of business dealings attracted the statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the drawer did not rebut that presumption. The trial court&#039;s acquittal was found perverse because it rested on an unsupported assumption that no enforceable debt existed despite dishonour of the cheque, admission of signature, and evidence linking the cheque to the underlying transaction. The challenge to the complainant&#039;s authorisation also failed, as the complaint was filed through an authorised representative. The appellate court therefore set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondents, and imposed fine-based compensation with a default sentence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2026 08:40:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=901658" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 747 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791545</link>
      <description>A voluntarily signed cheque handed over in the course of business dealings attracted the statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the drawer did not rebut that presumption. The trial court&#039;s acquittal was found perverse because it rested on an unsupported assumption that no enforceable debt existed despite dishonour of the cheque, admission of signature, and evidence linking the cheque to the underlying transaction. The challenge to the complainant&#039;s authorisation also failed, as the complaint was filed through an authorised representative. The appellate court therefore set aside the acquittal, convicted the respondents, and imposed fine-based compensation with a default sentence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791545</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>