<?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>2014 (9) TMI 1118 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194019</link>
    <description>A cheque dishonour complaint filed by a company through an authorised representative was held maintainable, and defects relating to production of the original resolution or the mode of verification were treated as curable. At the stage of issuance of process, the Magistrate could rely on the complaint, supporting documents and the affidavit under Section 200 CrPC. The absence of an express averment of the authorised representative&#039;s personal knowledge did not, by itself, justify quashing where the complaint and accompanying material disclosed a prima facie case. The challenge to the process orders therefore failed, and the complaints were allowed to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Aug 2017 10:20:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=486959" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 1118 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194019</link>
      <description>A cheque dishonour complaint filed by a company through an authorised representative was held maintainable, and defects relating to production of the original resolution or the mode of verification were treated as curable. At the stage of issuance of process, the Magistrate could rely on the complaint, supporting documents and the affidavit under Section 200 CrPC. The absence of an express averment of the authorised representative&#039;s personal knowledge did not, by itself, justify quashing where the complaint and accompanying material disclosed a prima facie case. The challenge to the process orders therefore failed, and the complaints were allowed to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194019</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>