<?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>2005 (2) TMI 901 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298883</link>
    <description>The court invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings related to an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contested the legal enforceability of the debt and consideration regarding a dishonored cheque, while the complainant claimed holder in due course status. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, emphasizing the requirements for holder in due course status, including proper endorsement and consideration. Finding the complainant did not meet these criteria, the court granted the criminal petition, quashing the complaint against the petitioner.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Nov 2021 15:11:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662027" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 901 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298883</link>
      <description>The court invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash proceedings related to an alleged offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petitioner contested the legal enforceability of the debt and consideration regarding a dishonored cheque, while the complainant claimed holder in due course status. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Act, emphasizing the requirements for holder in due course status, including proper endorsement and consideration. Finding the complainant did not meet these criteria, the court granted the criminal petition, quashing the complaint against the petitioner.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>