<?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>2016 (11) TMI 78 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334060</link>
    <description>The court found that the summoning order dated 28.01.2015 lacked sufficient application of mind as the petitioners were not liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitions challenging the order were allowed, setting it aside and discharging the personal and bail bonds without costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 09:32:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 78 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334060</link>
      <description>The court found that the summoning order dated 28.01.2015 lacked sufficient application of mind as the petitioners were not liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitions challenging the order were allowed, setting it aside and discharging the personal and bail bonds without costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334060</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>