<?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>2017 (1) TMI 521 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337441</link>
    <description>Each dishonour of a cheque under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act gives rise to a separate offence and separate cause of action, so joint trial is only available within the limited exceptions in sections 219, 220 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The text explains that clubbing depends on statutory limits, sameness of transaction and absence of prejudice, and that section 219 permits only up to three offences of the same kind within twelve months. Where the cheques, dates, amounts, return memos and notices differ, and a belated clubbing request would prolong proceedings rather than expedite them, clubbing is not justified and section 482 interference is unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2017 07:22:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=454755" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 521 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337441</link>
      <description>Each dishonour of a cheque under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act gives rise to a separate offence and separate cause of action, so joint trial is only available within the limited exceptions in sections 219, 220 and 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The text explains that clubbing depends on statutory limits, sameness of transaction and absence of prejudice, and that section 219 permits only up to three offences of the same kind within twelve months. Where the cheques, dates, amounts, return memos and notices differ, and a belated clubbing request would prolong proceedings rather than expedite them, clubbing is not justified and section 482 interference is unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=337441</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>