<?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 (7) TMI 990 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795104</link>
    <description>A bona fide, substantiated explanation is required to condone delay in filing a revision petition; unsupported claims that prior counsel falsely assured a litigant of filing, without records, affidavit, complaint or follow-up particulars, do not establish sufficient cause. Illiteracy does not remove the duty of ordinary diligence. In cheque dishonour proceedings, admission of the cheque, signature, dishonour and correct notice address triggers presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability. The accused must raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Materially inconsistent repayment and security-cheque claims, unsupported by bank evidence or steps to recover allegedly misused cheques, fail to rebut those presumptions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:37:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=912185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 990 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795104</link>
      <description>A bona fide, substantiated explanation is required to condone delay in filing a revision petition; unsupported claims that prior counsel falsely assured a litigant of filing, without records, affidavit, complaint or follow-up particulars, do not establish sufficient cause. Illiteracy does not remove the duty of ordinary diligence. In cheque dishonour proceedings, admission of the cheque, signature, dishonour and correct notice address triggers presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability. The accused must raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Materially inconsistent repayment and security-cheque claims, unsupported by bank evidence or steps to recover allegedly misused cheques, fail to rebut those presumptions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795104</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>