<?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 (4) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377558</link>
    <description>A consolidated complaint for dishonour of cheques issued in the same transaction was treated as maintainable, and Section 219 CrPC was not held to bar proceedings at the summoning stage. Dishonour on a stop-payment instruction was also held sufficient to attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, provided the other statutory ingredients are met. The complaint further contained adequate averments to proceed against both the signatory director and the non-signatory director under Section 141, with responsibility and defences left for trial. The petition under Section 482 CrPC disclosed no ground for interference, and the summoning order was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2019 06:26:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=564972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 2 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377558</link>
      <description>A consolidated complaint for dishonour of cheques issued in the same transaction was treated as maintainable, and Section 219 CrPC was not held to bar proceedings at the summoning stage. Dishonour on a stop-payment instruction was also held sufficient to attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, provided the other statutory ingredients are met. The complaint further contained adequate averments to proceed against both the signatory director and the non-signatory director under Section 141, with responsibility and defences left for trial. The petition under Section 482 CrPC disclosed no ground for interference, and the summoning order was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>