<?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>2018 (1) TMI 1644 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297368</link>
    <description>An order declining cognizance against a company and permitting correction of the cause title was treated as quasi-final and therefore revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint may be amended to implead the company where the body of the complaint and prayer clause already contain allegations against it, because omission from the cause title is a curable defect. Notice served on the Managing Director who signed the cheque was held sufficient notice to the company, so separate service on the company was not necessary on the facts. The revisional order allowing amendment and cognizance against the company was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Aug 2021 22:17:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=654402" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 1644 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297368</link>
      <description>An order declining cognizance against a company and permitting correction of the cause title was treated as quasi-final and therefore revisable under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a complaint may be amended to implead the company where the body of the complaint and prayer clause already contain allegations against it, because omission from the cause title is a curable defect. Notice served on the Managing Director who signed the cheque was held sufficient notice to the company, so separate service on the company was not necessary on the facts. The revisional order allowing amendment and cognizance against the company was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297368</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>