<?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 (2) TMI 984 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156843</link>
    <description>Clause (a) of the proviso to s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires presentation of the cheque at the drawee bank on which it is drawn within six months to fasten criminal liability. Although the payee may deposit the cheque with any collecting bank, such bank must present it for collection to the drawee bank within the statutory period; presentation only to the collecting bank is insufficient. Applying ss.2, 72 and 138 conjointly, the SC held that failure to present the cheque to the drawer&#039;s bank within six months nullified the statutory condition precedent, and the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to issue process. The HC order was set aside and the process/complaint was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2026 17:30:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=173869" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 984 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156843</link>
      <description>Clause (a) of the proviso to s.138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires presentation of the cheque at the drawee bank on which it is drawn within six months to fasten criminal liability. Although the payee may deposit the cheque with any collecting bank, such bank must present it for collection to the drawee bank within the statutory period; presentation only to the collecting bank is insufficient. Applying ss.2, 72 and 138 conjointly, the SC held that failure to present the cheque to the drawer&#039;s bank within six months nullified the statutory condition precedent, and the criminal court lacked jurisdiction to issue process. The HC order was set aside and the process/complaint was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=156843</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>