<?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 (4) TMI 2 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341032</link>
    <description>Section 138 liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the drawer or signatory of the dishonoured cheque, and the provision must be strictly construed because it is penal in nature. A joint account holder who merely signed the loan agreement, but did not sign the cheque, cannot be prosecuted on that basis alone; vicarious liability cannot be extended beyond what the statute permits. The proceedings against the applicant were therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Apr 2017 07:04:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=463669" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 2 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341032</link>
      <description>Section 138 liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the drawer or signatory of the dishonoured cheque, and the provision must be strictly construed because it is penal in nature. A joint account holder who merely signed the loan agreement, but did not sign the cheque, cannot be prosecuted on that basis alone; vicarious liability cannot be extended beyond what the statute permits. The proceedings against the applicant were therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>