<?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>2019 (3) TMI 1080 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377059</link>
    <description>Rule 15.3 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 allows additional charges for dishonoured cheques, but liability cannot be imposed mechanically where the consumer is not at fault. The cheque in question was returned by the bank as &quot;account closed&quot; despite the account being live, and the dishonour arose from banking error rather than any act of the consumer. The Court held that the phrase &quot;for any reason whatsoever&quot; applies only where the drawer is responsible for the dishonour, and that a blanket levy without examining the surrounding facts was arbitrary. The charge for restoration of cheque facility was therefore unsustainable and refund was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Mar 2019 06:09:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=563712" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (3) TMI 1080 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377059</link>
      <description>Rule 15.3 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code, 2004 allows additional charges for dishonoured cheques, but liability cannot be imposed mechanically where the consumer is not at fault. The cheque in question was returned by the bank as &quot;account closed&quot; despite the account being live, and the dishonour arose from banking error rather than any act of the consumer. The Court held that the phrase &quot;for any reason whatsoever&quot; applies only where the drawer is responsible for the dishonour, and that a blanket levy without examining the surrounding facts was arbitrary. The charge for restoration of cheque facility was therefore unsustainable and refund was allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377059</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>