<?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>Judgment of the Supreme Court in case of M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Others Versus M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Another needs a reconsideration on aspect of óther liability’’ of person who issued cheque as advance money, which dishonoured.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=5982</link>
    <description>Whether post dated cheques issued as advance payments constitute a legally enforceable debt or other liability is determinative for invoking the penal provision on cheque dishonour. The court held that the explanation to the provision requires a subsisting enforceable liability at the date of drawal; advance obligations or contingent future payments, or where the purchase order is not executed, generally do not amount to such a subsisting liability. The author argues this position should be reconsidered where the payee acted on the advance and cancellation occurred after cheque dates.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 06:35:44 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 06:35:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=372560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Judgment of the Supreme Court in case of M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Others Versus M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Another needs a reconsideration on aspect of óther liability’’ of person who issued cheque as advance money, which dishonoured.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=5982</link>
      <description>Whether post dated cheques issued as advance payments constitute a legally enforceable debt or other liability is determinative for invoking the penal provision on cheque dishonour. The court held that the explanation to the provision requires a subsisting enforceable liability at the date of drawal; advance obligations or contingent future payments, or where the purchase order is not executed, generally do not amount to such a subsisting liability. The author argues this position should be reconsidered where the payee acted on the advance and cancellation occurred after cheque dates.</description>
      <category>Articles</category>
      <law>Corporate Laws / IBC / SEBI</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2015 06:35:44 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=5982</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>