<?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 (6) TMI 1002 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409106</link>
    <description>Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the person who draws and signs the cheque on the relevant account. A person who is neither the drawer nor the signatory cannot be prosecuted merely on the basis of an alleged underlying liability. The Court also held that Section 141, which concerns offences by companies, could not be extended to a private individual in the manner suggested. As the applicant&#039;s signature on the cheque was undisputed, the defect was apparent on the face of the complaint and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process; the complaint was quashed qua the applicant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2021 10:00:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (6) TMI 1002 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409106</link>
      <description>Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the person who draws and signs the cheque on the relevant account. A person who is neither the drawer nor the signatory cannot be prosecuted merely on the basis of an alleged underlying liability. The Court also held that Section 141, which concerns offences by companies, could not be extended to a private individual in the manner suggested. As the applicant&#039;s signature on the cheque was undisputed, the defect was apparent on the face of the complaint and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process; the complaint was quashed qua the applicant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409106</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>