<?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 545 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112530</link>
    <description>Strict compliance governs the proviso to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: a statutory notice must be issued within thirty days of receipt of bank intimation of dishonour, and section 9 of the General Clauses Act does not apply where the statutory language does not support that mode of computation. On the facts stated, the notice issued on the 31st day was outside the prescribed period, so prosecution under section 138 could not be sustained. The text also states that a later private settlement did not bar interference with the conviction and sentence, though the amount already received was allowed to be retained toward the admitted civil liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Mar 2014 12:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (5) TMI 545 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112530</link>
      <description>Strict compliance governs the proviso to section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act: a statutory notice must be issued within thirty days of receipt of bank intimation of dishonour, and section 9 of the General Clauses Act does not apply where the statutory language does not support that mode of computation. On the facts stated, the notice issued on the 31st day was outside the prescribed period, so prosecution under section 138 could not be sustained. The text also states that a later private settlement did not bar interference with the conviction and sentence, though the amount already received was allowed to be retained toward the admitted civil liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112530</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>