<?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 (9) TMI 1499 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348742</link>
    <description>A cheque issued under a memorandum of understanding towards balance sale consideration can attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the underlying liability is supported by the arrangement and the issuance of post-dated cheques is admitted. The plea that the cheque was only a security cheque did not defeat liability, because the cheque was presented within time, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice was served, and payment was not made within the prescribed period. The Court also applied the principle that a signer of an inchoate negotiable instrument gives prima facie authority to complete it. The challenge to quashing the summoning order was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2017 07:11:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=490883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (9) TMI 1499 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348742</link>
      <description>A cheque issued under a memorandum of understanding towards balance sale consideration can attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act where the underlying liability is supported by the arrangement and the issuance of post-dated cheques is admitted. The plea that the cheque was only a security cheque did not defeat liability, because the cheque was presented within time, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice was served, and payment was not made within the prescribed period. The Court also applied the principle that a signer of an inchoate negotiable instrument gives prima facie authority to complete it. The challenge to quashing the summoning order was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348742</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>