<?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 1849 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287155</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision convicting the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to defective notices. The Court clarified that the demand notice should specify only the cheque amount, not any other amount exceeding it. As the loan amount and cheque amount were the same in this case, the appellant&#039;s appeals were dismissed, and the amount held in the Registry was ordered to be paid to the respondent with interest.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Apr 2020 10:37:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=608838" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 1849 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287155</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision convicting the appellant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act due to defective notices. The Court clarified that the demand notice should specify only the cheque amount, not any other amount exceeding it. As the loan amount and cheque amount were the same in this case, the appellant&#039;s appeals were dismissed, and the amount held in the Registry was ordered to be paid to the respondent with interest.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>