Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

Dishonored Cheque Case: Appellate Court Overturned, Fine Imposed at 1.5x Cheque Amount Under Negotiable Instruments Act.

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Dishonor of cheque creates legally enforceable liability with a rebuttable presumption, requiring the respondent to introduce evidence to rebut it. The respondent failed to justify the reason for not adducing evidence initially. The presumption remains undislodged, yet the accused was acquitted. An offense u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is committed when a cheque is dishonored for insufficient funds. The discrepancy over the interest rate, whether 1.8%, 2.4%, or 3% per month, was insufficient to disbelieve the appellant's claim. Even at 1.8% per month, the interest exceeded the prescribed cap of 12% per annum under the Tamil Nadu Act. The respondent, being a subscriber to a chit fund company, should have challenged the interest r.........