<?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>2003 (1) TMI 756 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300236</link>
    <description>Dishonoured cheques issued toward discharge of liability were treated as giving rise to a fresh cause of action, so the recovery suit was not barred by limitation. The court also accepted a written acknowledgment in the defendant&#039;s handwriting as supporting limitation. On interest, it held that statutory interest could be awarded on negotiable instruments even without an express agreement for interest, and any prior arrangement against interest did not negate the legal consequence after dishonour. The appeal therefore failed on both limitation and interest, and the decree for the plaintiff was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Jan 2022 12:21:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=667541" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (1) TMI 756 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300236</link>
      <description>Dishonoured cheques issued toward discharge of liability were treated as giving rise to a fresh cause of action, so the recovery suit was not barred by limitation. The court also accepted a written acknowledgment in the defendant&#039;s handwriting as supporting limitation. On interest, it held that statutory interest could be awarded on negotiable instruments even without an express agreement for interest, and any prior arrangement against interest did not negate the legal consequence after dishonour. The appeal therefore failed on both limitation and interest, and the decree for the plaintiff was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300236</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>