<?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>2008 (1) TMI 978 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279756</link>
    <description>The Court quashed the complaint against the petitioner, a joint account holder, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The Court found the petitioner not liable as the complaint did not implicate her in the issuance of the dishonored cheque, which primarily focused on her husband. Lack of evidence against the petitioner led to the petition being allowed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 12:44:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 978 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279756</link>
      <description>The Court quashed the complaint against the petitioner, a joint account holder, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act. The Court found the petitioner not liable as the complaint did not implicate her in the issuance of the dishonored cheque, which primarily focused on her husband. Lack of evidence against the petitioner led to the petition being allowed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279756</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>