<?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 1282 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193633</link>
    <description>The appellate court partially allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the acquittal judgment for respondents 1 to 3 and convicting them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Respondents 4 to 6 were acquitted as they were not partners of the first respondent firm during the relevant time. Respondents 2 and 3 were directed to appear before the court for questioning on the sentence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2017 06:37:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485103" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1282 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193633</link>
      <description>The appellate court partially allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the acquittal judgment for respondents 1 to 3 and convicting them under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Respondents 4 to 6 were acquitted as they were not partners of the first respondent firm during the relevant time. Respondents 2 and 3 were directed to appear before the court for questioning on the sentence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193633</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>