<?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>2020 (1) TMI 1113 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391500</link>
    <description>Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was stated not to bar continuation of criminal prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, because the moratorium covers suits and analogous proceedings, not penal prosecution. Approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 was stated to bind stakeholders and end the moratorium, but not to extinguish criminal liability or terminate cheque dishonour proceedings against the corporate debtor or an erstwhile managing director. The article also states that inability to access company records did not justify quashing, because defence remedies remain available during trial and no ground existed for inherent interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2020 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601842" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1113 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391500</link>
      <description>Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was stated not to bar continuation of criminal prosecution under Sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, because the moratorium covers suits and analogous proceedings, not penal prosecution. Approval of a resolution plan under Section 31 was stated to bind stakeholders and end the moratorium, but not to extinguish criminal liability or terminate cheque dishonour proceedings against the corporate debtor or an erstwhile managing director. The article also states that inability to access company records did not justify quashing, because defence remedies remain available during trial and no ground existed for inherent interference under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>