<?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>Security cheque dishonour can still trigger liability when probable defence is not established and debt remains enforceable.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101216</link>
    <description>A cheque issued as security in a loan transaction can still attract liability on dishonour if it is presented on default and a legally enforceable debt subsists. The note explains that the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable, but the drawer must raise a probable defence, which may be based on the complainant&#039;s own material; absent such defence, the presumption of liability under Section 139 remains intact. It also states that revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as a second appeal for re-appreciation of evidence. On the facts discussed, the accused admitted the loan, failed to probabilise the security-cheque plea, and no perversity or miscarriage of justice was shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 07:22:18 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 07:22:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909181" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Security cheque dishonour can still trigger liability when probable defence is not established and debt remains enforceable.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101216</link>
      <description>A cheque issued as security in a loan transaction can still attract liability on dishonour if it is presented on default and a legally enforceable debt subsists. The note explains that the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable, but the drawer must raise a probable defence, which may be based on the complainant&#039;s own material; absent such defence, the presumption of liability under Section 139 remains intact. It also states that revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as a second appeal for re-appreciation of evidence. On the facts discussed, the accused admitted the loan, failed to probabilise the security-cheque plea, and no perversity or miscarriage of justice was shown.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 07:22:18 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=101216</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>