<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (8) TMI 1288 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106766</link>
    <description>Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the dishonour notice to be issued within fifteen days from the date the payee receives information from the bank that the cheque has been returned unpaid. On the material before the trial court, the complainant was informed of dishonour only on 17-1-1994, with intervening Pongal holidays affecting the timing. The High Court quashed the proceedings without examining that evidence or calling for the trial court record. The Supreme Court held that the notice was not shown to be beyond the statutory period on the available material, so the quashing order could not stand and the matter was remitted for trial according to law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2013 13:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=143786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1288 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106766</link>
      <description>Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires the dishonour notice to be issued within fifteen days from the date the payee receives information from the bank that the cheque has been returned unpaid. On the material before the trial court, the complainant was informed of dishonour only on 17-1-1994, with intervening Pongal holidays affecting the timing. The High Court quashed the proceedings without examining that evidence or calling for the trial court record. The Supreme Court held that the notice was not shown to be beyond the statutory period on the available material, so the quashing order could not stand and the matter was remitted for trial according to law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 14 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106766</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>