<?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>2015 (6) TMI 1223 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296832</link>
    <description>The dispute was amicably settled between the parties, and the cheque amount had already been paid to the complainant. On the basis of the settlement deed on record, the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as compounded. As the underlying controversy stood resolved, the High Court found no reason to sustain the conviction or the appellate order, and quashed both orders in favour of the accused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2021 08:52:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652023" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (6) TMI 1223 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296832</link>
      <description>The dispute was amicably settled between the parties, and the cheque amount had already been paid to the complainant. On the basis of the settlement deed on record, the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as compounded. As the underlying controversy stood resolved, the High Court found no reason to sustain the conviction or the appellate order, and quashed both orders in favour of the accused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296832</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>