<?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>2019 (4) TMI 1819 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286023</link>
    <description>A moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not bar criminal proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint alleged issuance and dishonour of cheques and service of demand notice, which was sufficient to disclose a prima facie case. In a quashing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court must proceed on the complaint averments and not assess the defence in depth or conduct a parallel trial. The statutory presumption under Section 139 also supported maintainability of the complaint, so the request to quash was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 10 Feb 2020 07:51:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=603278" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1819 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286023</link>
      <description>A moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code does not bar criminal proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint alleged issuance and dishonour of cheques and service of demand notice, which was sufficient to disclose a prima facie case. In a quashing petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court must proceed on the complaint averments and not assess the defence in depth or conduct a parallel trial. The statutory presumption under Section 139 also supported maintainability of the complaint, so the request to quash was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=286023</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>