<?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>Statutory notice and debt presumption failed as probable defence rebutted cheque dishonour liability</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99966</link>
    <description>Presumption of service of a statutory demand notice was not upheld where the postal endorsement of the addressee being absent for seven days, without more, did not prove deemed service and the complainant led no further evidence to dislodge the defence of absence due to illness at home. The court also held that the statutory presumption under Section 139 was rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities because the alleged loan transaction was not reliably proved: the date of advance was unspecified, no written agreement existed, and the defence that the cheques related to a chit-fund business was found probable. Section 138 was therefore not attracted and the acquittal was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 08:30:23 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 08:30:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=902992" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Statutory notice and debt presumption failed as probable defence rebutted cheque dishonour liability</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99966</link>
      <description>Presumption of service of a statutory demand notice was not upheld where the postal endorsement of the addressee being absent for seven days, without more, did not prove deemed service and the complainant led no further evidence to dislodge the defence of absence due to illness at home. The court also held that the statutory presumption under Section 139 was rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities because the alleged loan transaction was not reliably proved: the date of advance was unspecified, no written agreement existed, and the defence that the cheques related to a chit-fund business was found probable. Section 138 was therefore not attracted and the acquittal was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 May 2026 08:30:23 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>