https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793459 Proof of a cheque and its execution triggers the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant, and the accused must rebut them with a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities; mere denial is insufficient. A bank return memo carries its own presumptive value, and absence of a bank official does not by itself defeat documentary proof of dishonour. Financial capacity and liability must be displaced by reliable evidence, not conjecture. In revision, concurrent findings are not disturbed unless there is patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. en-us Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Jun 2026 10:37:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793459 Proof of a cheque and its execution triggers the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant, and the accused must rebut them with a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities; mere denial is insufficient. A bank return memo carries its own presumptive value, and absence of a bank official does not by itself defeat documentary proof of dishonour. Financial capacity and liability must be displaced by reliable evidence, not conjecture. In revision, concurrent findings are not disturbed unless there is patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 10 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793459