<?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>2006 (5) TMI 471 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167652</link>
    <description>The appeal contesting the acquittal under Sec. 138 of the N.I Act was dismissed by the HC. The court determined that the post-dated cheque was not issued to settle any specific liability towards the complainant, as it was associated with an order for mixies that were not supplied. The appellant failed to substantiate the exact liability amount related to the cheque, leading to the conclusion that the acquittal was justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Feb 2024 08:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372464" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 471 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167652</link>
      <description>The appeal contesting the acquittal under Sec. 138 of the N.I Act was dismissed by the HC. The court determined that the post-dated cheque was not issued to settle any specific liability towards the complainant, as it was associated with an order for mixies that were not supplied. The appellant failed to substantiate the exact liability amount related to the cheque, leading to the conclusion that the acquittal was justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=167652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>