<?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 1468 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794087</link>
    <description>A dishonoured cheque issued in a loan transaction attracted Section 138 NI Act because the loan, cheque issuance, and signatures were admitted, and the accused failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 by showing a probable defence or absence of legally enforceable liability. The cheque being described as security did not avoid liability where the underlying debt subsisted and the cheque was presented on maturity. Revisional interference was also declined because revisional jurisdiction is confined to correcting illegality, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice, and no such defect was shown in the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 07:22:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 1468 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794087</link>
      <description>A dishonoured cheque issued in a loan transaction attracted Section 138 NI Act because the loan, cheque issuance, and signatures were admitted, and the accused failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 by showing a probable defence or absence of legally enforceable liability. The cheque being described as security did not avoid liability where the underlying debt subsisted and the cheque was presented on maturity. Revisional interference was also declined because revisional jurisdiction is confined to correcting illegality, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice, and no such defect was shown in the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>