<?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>2014 (9) TMI 1236 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296008</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be filed and verified by a power of attorney holder who has knowledge of the transaction, and such holder may depose on oath where the complaint and evidence show due involvement. The absence of a separate pre-summoning affidavit or the complainant&#039;s personal examination under Section 200 CrPC does not, by itself, vitiate the complaint when the authorised holder has given a sworn statement and the complainant later testifies. The maintainability objections were rejected, and the matter was left for determination of whether the cheques were issued as security or in discharge of a legally recoverable debt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jan 2025 16:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=648195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (9) TMI 1236 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296008</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be filed and verified by a power of attorney holder who has knowledge of the transaction, and such holder may depose on oath where the complaint and evidence show due involvement. The absence of a separate pre-summoning affidavit or the complainant&#039;s personal examination under Section 200 CrPC does not, by itself, vitiate the complaint when the authorised holder has given a sworn statement and the complainant later testifies. The maintainability objections were rejected, and the matter was left for determination of whether the cheques were issued as security or in discharge of a legally recoverable debt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>