<?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>2015 (3) TMI 65 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257129</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court&#039;s decision that the presentation of a cheque in a specific location does not automatically confer jurisdiction on the Courts to try accused persons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeals before the Supreme Court were dismissed without specific orders as to costs, emphasizing the importance of proper jurisdiction based on legal precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2014 13:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=377831" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 65 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257129</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court&#039;s decision that the presentation of a cheque in a specific location does not automatically confer jurisdiction on the Courts to try accused persons under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The appeals before the Supreme Court were dismissed without specific orders as to costs, emphasizing the importance of proper jurisdiction based on legal precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257129</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>