<?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>2018 (3) TMI 640 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356937</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court ruled in the case that the date of receiving information about the dishonoured cheque should be excluded when calculating the statutory notice period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the petitioner&#039;s complaint was reinstated, overturning the previous order. The Trial Court was instructed to expedite the proceedings due to the significant delay since the cheque&#039;s dishonour in 2006.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2018 10:01:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=512743" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 640 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356937</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court ruled in the case that the date of receiving information about the dishonoured cheque should be excluded when calculating the statutory notice period under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Consequently, the petitioner&#039;s complaint was reinstated, overturning the previous order. The Trial Court was instructed to expedite the proceedings due to the significant delay since the cheque&#039;s dishonour in 2006.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=356937</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>