<?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 (10) TMI 1229 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300128</link>
    <description>The court held that the absence of individual statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act rendered the prosecution invalid. It emphasized the mandatory requirement of serving statutory notice to the petitioner before initiating proceedings. The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner but allowed them to continue against other accused individuals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Feb 2022 11:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=667038" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1229 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300128</link>
      <description>The court held that the absence of individual statutory notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act rendered the prosecution invalid. It emphasized the mandatory requirement of serving statutory notice to the petitioner before initiating proceedings. The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner but allowed them to continue against other accused individuals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300128</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>