TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of The High Court addressed the challenge to the acquittal of the accused u/s 255(1) of Cr. P. C. for dishonoring a cheque due to insufficient funds. It clarified that the statutory notice period starts from the date of receiving information from the bank about the dishonored cheque, not the exact dishonor date. The court upheld the validity of the notice despite the inclusion of a demand for legal interest alongside the cheque amount. Citing Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal, it emphasized that separate claims in the notice are permissible and do not invalidate it. Consequently, the accused was convicted u/s 138 of the NI Act, sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court, and ordered to pay Rs.70,000 compensation u/s 357(3) Cr.P.C, with a default clause for further imprisonment if the compensation is not paid. The appeal was allowed, overturning the previous judgment.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
