<?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 (10) TMI 759 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413707</link>
    <description>The court held that both partners in a partnership firm were liable for dishonoured cheques, emphasizing the joint responsibility to ensure cheques were honored. The petitioner failed to prove her lack of direct interest in the firm or exemption from liability. The court dismissed the petitions, allowing the trial to proceed to determine the petitioner&#039;s specific role and involvement in the firm&#039;s transactions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2021 08:22:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=658849" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (10) TMI 759 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413707</link>
      <description>The court held that both partners in a partnership firm were liable for dishonoured cheques, emphasizing the joint responsibility to ensure cheques were honored. The petitioner failed to prove her lack of direct interest in the firm or exemption from liability. The court dismissed the petitions, allowing the trial to proceed to determine the petitioner&#039;s specific role and involvement in the firm&#039;s transactions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413707</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>