<?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 (8) TMI 1219 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365747</link>
    <description>A cheque dishonour complaint was treated as maintainable where five cheques were presented within the statutory period and returned unpaid, even though other cheques were time-barred. Dispatch of statutory notice to the correct address was held sufficient at the threshold, with actual service left to evidence rather than quash proceedings. The complaint was also not defeated for want of authorisation or specific averments against the director, since the filing was authorised, a later board resolution regularised representation, and the director had signed the cheques. The prosecution was therefore permitted to continue, and quashing was refused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2018 11:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531709" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 1219 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365747</link>
      <description>A cheque dishonour complaint was treated as maintainable where five cheques were presented within the statutory period and returned unpaid, even though other cheques were time-barred. Dispatch of statutory notice to the correct address was held sufficient at the threshold, with actual service left to evidence rather than quash proceedings. The complaint was also not defeated for want of authorisation or specific averments against the director, since the filing was authorised, a later board resolution regularised representation, and the director had signed the cheques. The prosecution was therefore permitted to continue, and quashing was refused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 11 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365747</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>