<?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 (5) TMI 266 - MADHYA PRADESH  HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395233</link>
    <description>The court held that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not maintainable as the statutory notice was issued after the company had been ordered to be wound up. The summoning order was deemed bad in law, leading to the quashing of the criminal complaint. The court directed the order to be sent to the trial court for compliance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 May 2020 09:59:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (5) TMI 266 - MADHYA PRADESH  HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395233</link>
      <description>The court held that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not maintainable as the statutory notice was issued after the company had been ordered to be wound up. The summoning order was deemed bad in law, leading to the quashing of the criminal complaint. The court directed the order to be sent to the trial court for compliance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>