{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"LexForti ","provider_url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news","author_name":"LexForti Legal News Network","author_url":"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/author\/lexforti-legal-news-network\/","title":"Eight Important cases on Dishonor of Cheque - LexForti","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"pyxjKkyZ7W\"><a href=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/eight-important-cases-on-dishonor-of-cheque\/\">Eight Important cases on Dishonor of Cheque<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/eight-important-cases-on-dishonor-of-cheque\/embed\/#?secret=pyxjKkyZ7W\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Eight Important cases on Dishonor of Cheque&#8221; &#8212; LexForti \" data-secret=\"pyxjKkyZ7W\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,d){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(d.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=d.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=d.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),l=0;l<n.length;l++)n[l].style.display=\"none\";for(l=0;l<i.length;l++)if(r=i[l],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=d.createElement(\"a\"),a=d.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,!o.test(a.protocol));else if(a.host===s.host)if(d.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),d.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=d.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/lexforti.com\/legal-news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/Thanks-Giving-Dinner-7.jpg?fit=400%2C225&ssl=1","thumbnail_width":400,"thumbnail_height":225,"description":"Ronita Biswas | National Law University, Orissa | 31st January 2020 THE STANDARD OF PROOF FOR REBUTTING THE PRESUMPTION UNDER S.139 OF THE NI ACT IS THAT OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES. Harendra Ramchandra Pathak v. Rajendra Ratan Mhatre Adult (2020 SCC OnLine Bom 57) The appellant and respondent had business relations. Complainant stated that the [&hellip;]"}