<?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>2009 (5) TMI 533 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112502</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act did not disclose an offense as the cheque was dishonored due to being reported lost by the drawer, not for insufficient funds. The Court emphasized the strict interpretation of penal provisions and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the High Court&#039;s decision and allowing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Feb 2016 16:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149518" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 533 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112502</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act did not disclose an offense as the cheque was dishonored due to being reported lost by the drawer, not for insufficient funds. The Court emphasized the strict interpretation of penal provisions and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the High Court&#039;s decision and allowing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112502</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>