CHIT: Court rules in favor of respondents in dishonored cheque case. Appellant failed to prove legally enforceable debt. Burden of proof on appellant.

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws →

CHIT: Court rules in favor of respondents in dishonored cheque case. Appellant failed to prove legally enforceable debt. Burden of proof on appellant.

X X X X Extracts X X X X

....The High Court considered whether dishonored cheques were given for a legally enforceable debt. The appellant failed to prove the existence of a default by the respondents or that the cheques were for a valid debt. Without meeting the burden u/s 138, the appellant couldn't rely on u/s 139 presumption. The appellant must provide detailed account statements to establish a legally enforceable debt for a successful u/s 138 case. The respondents disputed the debt amount and claimed misuse of security cheques. Without proper evidence, the dishonor of cheques doesn't trigger u/s 138. The court upheld lower courts' decisions as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence. The appeal was dismissed.....

Contact Us At :

FAQs :

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

CHIT: Court rules in favor of respondents in dishonored cheque case. Appellant failed to prove legally enforceable debt. Burden of proof on appellant.