<?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 (6) TMI 56 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792675</link>
    <description>Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a rebuttable presumption that a cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the accused bears the burden of rebutting that reverse-onus presumption in a prosecution under Section 138. In view of the settlement between the parties, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, withdrew the subsequent orders, and disposed of the review petitions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jun 2026 08:47:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=904969" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 56 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792675</link>
      <description>Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a rebuttable presumption that a cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the accused bears the burden of rebutting that reverse-onus presumption in a prosecution under Section 138. In view of the settlement between the parties, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, withdrew the subsequent orders, and disposed of the review petitions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>