https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104784 Pendency of a winding-up petition does not, by itself, create a legal disability that prevents payment within the statutory notice period under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and a later winding-up order does not defeat the offence once non-payment after notice has occurred. The analysis applies sections 536(2) and 441(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 to state that a cheque is not a disposition of property and that section 138 is completed by failure to pay within the prescribed period after notice. A quashing challenge on that basis is therefore not maintainable. A separate plea that some directors had resigned earlier raised a disputed question of fact and could not be decided in inherent jurisdiction. en-us Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Apr 2012 14:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104784 Pendency of a winding-up petition does not, by itself, create a legal disability that prevents payment within the statutory notice period under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and a later winding-up order does not defeat the offence once non-payment after notice has occurred. The analysis applies sections 536(2) and 441(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 to state that a cheque is not a disposition of property and that section 138 is completed by failure to pay within the prescribed period after notice. A quashing challenge on that basis is therefore not maintainable. A separate plea that some directors had resigned earlier raised a disputed question of fact and could not be decided in inherent jurisdiction. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104784