https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383195 Where a company had already been declared sick and a BIFR restraint order under Section 22A of SICA was operative before the cheque was drawn or before expiry of the 15-day notice period, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may remain incomplete because the drawer was restrained from honouring the cheque. The controlling principle is that Section 22 of SICA does not itself bar criminal proceedings, but an operative restraint under Section 22A can prevent completion of the offence on the facts pleaded. An order allowing use of current assets for day-to-day operations did not authorise payment of the alleged liability, and repeal of SICA did not revive a complaint where process had been issued before completion of the offence. en-us Tue, 09 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Jul 2019 07:22:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383195 Where a company had already been declared sick and a BIFR restraint order under Section 22A of SICA was operative before the cheque was drawn or before expiry of the 15-day notice period, the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may remain incomplete because the drawer was restrained from honouring the cheque. The controlling principle is that Section 22 of SICA does not itself bar criminal proceedings, but an operative restraint under Section 22A can prevent completion of the offence on the facts pleaded. An order allowing use of current assets for day-to-day operations did not authorise payment of the alleged liability, and repeal of SICA did not revive a complaint where process had been issued before completion of the offence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=383195