<?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 (3) TMI 682 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299696</link>
    <description>In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the limitation for filing a complaint after notice returned unclaimed or refused is reckoned from the date the complainant receives the returned postal cover or is otherwise informed of the deemed service, not from the postal endorsement date. Applying that practical construction, the complaint was treated as within time. The court also accepted the complainant&#039;s evidence on cheque issuance and dishonour, rejected the accused&#039;s alternative transaction explanation as improbable, and found the foundational ingredients of the offence established, resulting in conviction with compensation and default sentence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 10:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=665195" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 682 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299696</link>
      <description>In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the limitation for filing a complaint after notice returned unclaimed or refused is reckoned from the date the complainant receives the returned postal cover or is otherwise informed of the deemed service, not from the postal endorsement date. Applying that practical construction, the complaint was treated as within time. The court also accepted the complainant&#039;s evidence on cheque issuance and dishonour, rejected the accused&#039;s alternative transaction explanation as improbable, and found the foundational ingredients of the offence established, resulting in conviction with compensation and default sentence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>