<?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>2002 (7) TMI 816 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274610</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held defective because it did not aver that the accused failed to pay within 15 days of receipt of notice. The court treated that omission as fatal, since non-payment within the statutory period is an essential ingredient of the offence and the cause of action arises only on that default. The sworn statement also lacked the required averment, so the criminal proceedings were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:23:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=531880" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (7) TMI 816 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274610</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held defective because it did not aver that the accused failed to pay within 15 days of receipt of notice. The court treated that omission as fatal, since non-payment within the statutory period is an essential ingredient of the offence and the cause of action arises only on that default. The sworn statement also lacked the required averment, so the criminal proceedings were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274610</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>