<?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>2021 (2) TMI 973 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404481</link>
    <description>Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 authorises an appellate court to require deposit of a portion of the compensation or fine in an appeal against conviction under Section 138, and where the appeal is governed by the amended provision, that statutory condition applies directly. Non-compliance with a deposit condition attached to suspension of sentence or bail can justify treating the relief as vacated or cancelling it. The text also states that a 20% deposit condition was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not merit interference in inherent jurisdiction, so the resulting cancellation of bail was upheld and the challenge to the condition failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2021 12:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=637281" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (2) TMI 973 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404481</link>
      <description>Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 authorises an appellate court to require deposit of a portion of the compensation or fine in an appeal against conviction under Section 138, and where the appeal is governed by the amended provision, that statutory condition applies directly. Non-compliance with a deposit condition attached to suspension of sentence or bail can justify treating the relief as vacated or cancelling it. The text also states that a 20% deposit condition was not unreasonable in the circumstances and did not merit interference in inherent jurisdiction, so the resulting cancellation of bail was upheld and the challenge to the condition failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=404481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>