<?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>2007 (12) TMI 522 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279757</link>
    <description>Liability for cheque dishonour attaches to the drawer of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and penal provisions must be strictly construed. A co-holder of a joint bank account is not liable merely because of the joint account or a marital relationship where she neither signed nor issued the cheque and had no direct dealings with the complainant. Section 141 creates only limited deeming liability in the specific situations it contemplates, such as where the offender is a company and the person is in charge of its affairs. On these principles, prosecution could not be maintained against the non-signatory joint account holder.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 12:48:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565590" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (12) TMI 522 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279757</link>
      <description>Liability for cheque dishonour attaches to the drawer of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and penal provisions must be strictly construed. A co-holder of a joint bank account is not liable merely because of the joint account or a marital relationship where she neither signed nor issued the cheque and had no direct dealings with the complainant. Section 141 creates only limited deeming liability in the specific situations it contemplates, such as where the offender is a company and the person is in charge of its affairs. On these principles, prosecution could not be maintained against the non-signatory joint account holder.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279757</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>