<?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>1998 (6) TMI 576 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195217</link>
    <description>The court dismissed all criminal writ petitions, ruling that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed solely based on winding-up petitions. It held that there was no legal bar for the companies to make payments during the winding-up process, and failure to pay within the notice period constituted an offense. The court directed the accused to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts on specified dates.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Oct 2017 10:41:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=493125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 576 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195217</link>
      <description>The court dismissed all criminal writ petitions, ruling that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be quashed solely based on winding-up petitions. It held that there was no legal bar for the companies to make payments during the winding-up process, and failure to pay within the notice period constituted an offense. The court directed the accused to appear before the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts on specified dates.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=195217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>