<?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 (11) TMI 504 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400749</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in a criminal revision petition. The accused failed to disprove the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act regarding the dishonoured cheque. The court emphasized the importance of respecting concurrent findings and modified the sentence, granting an extended timeline for fine payment due to case duration and circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:31:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627894" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 504 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400749</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in a criminal revision petition. The accused failed to disprove the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act regarding the dishonoured cheque. The court emphasized the importance of respecting concurrent findings and modified the sentence, granting an extended timeline for fine payment due to case duration and circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>