<?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>Admitted cheque signatures raise debt presumptions, while revisional courts cannot reassess concurrent evidence without material jurisdictional error.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102366</link>
    <description>Admitted cheque signatures trigger presumptions of consideration and discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The notes explain that an accused alleging misuse of a blank security cheque must rebut those presumptions with credible material; unsupported assertions, delayed demands for return of the cheque, and unsubstantiated challenges to the complainant&#039;s financial capacity may be insufficient. They further state that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate: concurrent findings should not be reversed through fresh reappreciation of evidence unless perversity, material error, failure to consider relevant evidence, or miscarriage of justice is shown.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:48:02 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:48:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=915340" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Admitted cheque signatures raise debt presumptions, while revisional courts cannot reassess concurrent evidence without material jurisdictional error.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102366</link>
      <description>Admitted cheque signatures trigger presumptions of consideration and discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The notes explain that an accused alleging misuse of a blank security cheque must rebut those presumptions with credible material; unsupported assertions, delayed demands for return of the cheque, and unsubstantiated challenges to the complainant&#039;s financial capacity may be insufficient. They further state that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate: concurrent findings should not be reversed through fresh reappreciation of evidence unless perversity, material error, failure to consider relevant evidence, or miscarriage of justice is shown.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:48:02 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102366</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>