<?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 (6) TMI 91 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213771</link>
    <description>A cheque issued by one sister concern through a common director can attract criminal liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the cheque is issued in discharge of a proved debt or other liability arising from supplies made to another concern. The Court treated the arrangement between the parties as sufficient to establish the debt-liability nexus, and held that separate corporate personality did not defeat liability once that nexus was shown. The statutory presumption under section 139 operated in favour of the holder and remained unrebutted on the record, so the accused could not avoid liability merely by pointing to the two companies as separate legal entities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2013 18:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=187171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (6) TMI 91 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213771</link>
      <description>A cheque issued by one sister concern through a common director can attract criminal liability under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act when the cheque is issued in discharge of a proved debt or other liability arising from supplies made to another concern. The Court treated the arrangement between the parties as sufficient to establish the debt-liability nexus, and held that separate corporate personality did not defeat liability once that nexus was shown. The statutory presumption under section 139 operated in favour of the holder and remained unrebutted on the record, so the accused could not avoid liability merely by pointing to the two companies as separate legal entities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213771</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>