<?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>2009 (2) TMI 871 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196089</link>
    <description>Where cheques are issued under a compromise in a pending Section 138 complaint, dishonour of those cheques does not automatically require a fresh complaint if the settlement expressly provides that the original complaint will revive on default. A settlement cheque that fails to discharge the compromise is not treated as creating a new legally enforceable liability for Section 138 purposes. On that footing, the discharge order was set aside and the original complaint was directed to be revived before the Magistrate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Nov 2017 14:48:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496688" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 871 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196089</link>
      <description>Where cheques are issued under a compromise in a pending Section 138 complaint, dishonour of those cheques does not automatically require a fresh complaint if the settlement expressly provides that the original complaint will revive on default. A settlement cheque that fails to discharge the compromise is not treated as creating a new legally enforceable liability for Section 138 purposes. On that footing, the discharge order was set aside and the original complaint was directed to be revived before the Magistrate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196089</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>