<?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>2005 (7) TMI 716 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281487</link>
    <description>The court held that the petitioner, as the secretary of the society, could not be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheque in question was not drawn on the society&#039;s account. It was clarified that a person who neither issues a cheque nor maintains an account cannot be guilty under Section 138. The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of establishing the essential elements under Section 138 and the conditions under Section 141 before proceeding against any individual. The learned Magistrate was directed to drop all further proceedings against the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:10:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575940" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 716 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281487</link>
      <description>The court held that the petitioner, as the secretary of the society, could not be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as the cheque in question was not drawn on the society&#039;s account. It was clarified that a person who neither issues a cheque nor maintains an account cannot be guilty under Section 138. The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of establishing the essential elements under Section 138 and the conditions under Section 141 before proceeding against any individual. The learned Magistrate was directed to drop all further proceedings against the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281487</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>