<?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>2010 (1) TMI 1288 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299057</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable where part-payment made before presentation reduces the legally payable liability, but the cheque is still presented for the original full amount and the statutory notice demands that full sum without crediting the payment. The cheque must reflect the amount actually due on the date of presentation, and the notice under Section 138(b) must demand only the principal amount payable. Section 56 contemplates endorsement for part-payment, and a notice demanding more than the balance due, without disclosing the excess, does not satisfy the statutory requirement.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Sep 2025 11:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (1) TMI 1288 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299057</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not maintainable where part-payment made before presentation reduces the legally payable liability, but the cheque is still presented for the original full amount and the statutory notice demands that full sum without crediting the payment. The cheque must reflect the amount actually due on the date of presentation, and the notice under Section 138(b) must demand only the principal amount payable. Section 56 contemplates endorsement for part-payment, and a notice demanding more than the balance due, without disclosing the excess, does not satisfy the statutory requirement.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>