<?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 (4) TMI 755 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281491</link>
    <description>Liability for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the drawer of the cheque, or to a person shown to be responsible for the relevant business and non-payment. The complaint failed to clearly state when the business changed from proprietorship to partnership to company, identify the account from which the cheque was issued, or show who was responsible at the time of issuance and dishonour. As the record did not establish that the petitioner was the drawer or otherwise liable for the dishonour, no offence under Section 138 was made out and the criminal proceedings against him were liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2019 18:20:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=575945" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 755 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281491</link>
      <description>Liability for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the drawer of the cheque, or to a person shown to be responsible for the relevant business and non-payment. The complaint failed to clearly state when the business changed from proprietorship to partnership to company, identify the account from which the cheque was issued, or show who was responsible at the time of issuance and dishonour. As the record did not establish that the petitioner was the drawer or otherwise liable for the dishonour, no offence under Section 138 was made out and the criminal proceedings against him were liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281491</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>