<?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 (12) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415302</link>
    <description>Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 treats pre-deposit as the normal rule in an appeal by a drawer against conviction under Section 138, and waiver is available only in exceptional cases for special reasons. The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to assess the merits of the conviction while considering exemption and noted that the trial court&#039;s findings rested on documentary evidence and admissions concerning business dealings, signatures, and liability. Objections about an excessive cheque amount, a security cheque, financial difficulty, resignation from the firm, and non-compliance with Section 141 were treated as appellate issues and not a basis to avoid the statutory minimum deposit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Dec 2021 09:17:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=662692" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (12) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415302</link>
      <description>Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 treats pre-deposit as the normal rule in an appeal by a drawer against conviction under Section 138, and waiver is available only in exceptional cases for special reasons. The Punjab and Haryana High Court declined to assess the merits of the conviction while considering exemption and noted that the trial court&#039;s findings rested on documentary evidence and admissions concerning business dealings, signatures, and liability. Objections about an excessive cheque amount, a security cheque, financial difficulty, resignation from the firm, and non-compliance with Section 141 were treated as appellate issues and not a basis to avoid the statutory minimum deposit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>