<?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 (8) TMI 88 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796215</link>
    <description>Admission of a signed cheque, its dishonour due to account closure, and receipt of statutory notice triggers presumptions that it was issued for consideration and a legally enforceable debt, placing the burden on the accused to establish a probable defence. An unsupported repayment plea does not rebut those presumptions. A security cheque remains actionable where liability has matured, and voluntary delivery of a signed blank cheque permits completion of particulars absent cogent rebuttal. A cash loan violating tax restrictions may attract penalty but does not invalidate the debt. Revision cannot reassess concurrent factual findings without perversity, jurisdictional error, or legal untenability; the conviction and sentence were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2026 08:20:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=914977" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (8) TMI 88 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796215</link>
      <description>Admission of a signed cheque, its dishonour due to account closure, and receipt of statutory notice triggers presumptions that it was issued for consideration and a legally enforceable debt, placing the burden on the accused to establish a probable defence. An unsupported repayment plea does not rebut those presumptions. A security cheque remains actionable where liability has matured, and voluntary delivery of a signed blank cheque permits completion of particulars absent cogent rebuttal. A cash loan violating tax restrictions may attract penalty but does not invalidate the debt. Revision cannot reassess concurrent factual findings without perversity, jurisdictional error, or legal untenability; the conviction and sentence were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=796215</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>