<?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>2012 (5) TMI 508 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213673</link>
    <description>Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies where a cheque is issued towards a legally enforceable debt or other liability and is dishonoured; the drawer&#039;s status as a guarantor does not bar prosecution merely because the principal borrower has not first been proceeded against. The court treated the guarantor&#039;s criminal exposure under cheque dishonour law as distinct from co-extensive civil liability. A drawer who signs and hands over a blank cheque gives implied authority to the holder to complete it, and liability cannot be avoided simply because the payee filled in the particulars. The blank cheque defence was rejected, and the complaint was allowed to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2018 16:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 508 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213673</link>
      <description>Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies where a cheque is issued towards a legally enforceable debt or other liability and is dishonoured; the drawer&#039;s status as a guarantor does not bar prosecution merely because the principal borrower has not first been proceeded against. The court treated the guarantor&#039;s criminal exposure under cheque dishonour law as distinct from co-extensive civil liability. A drawer who signs and hands over a blank cheque gives implied authority to the holder to complete it, and liability cannot be avoided simply because the payee filled in the particulars. The blank cheque defence was rejected, and the complaint was allowed to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 May 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213673</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>