<?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>2012 (7) TMI 1135 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298546</link>
    <description>On a settlement reached during the pendency of the appeals, the Supreme Court permitted compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The compromise terms were placed before the Court, and that settlement formed the basis for allowing compounding. As a result, the conviction orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court were set aside and the appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Apr 2023 18:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=660569" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 1135 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298546</link>
      <description>On a settlement reached during the pendency of the appeals, the Supreme Court permitted compounding of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The compromise terms were placed before the Court, and that settlement formed the basis for allowing compounding. As a result, the conviction orders passed by the Trial Court and the High Court were set aside and the appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298546</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>