<?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>High Court Upholds Proceedings Against Petitioner for Breach of Trust and Fraud u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61922</link>
    <description>Dishonor of Cheque - multiplicity of/parallel proceedings - The businesses are conducted on trust but the petitioner failed to maintain the trust and committed breach without payment of money after receiving the goods. He also closed the business and kept himself absconding in the case under Section 138 NI Act due to which LPC proceedings were initiated against him. As it is not only a simple case of failure to repay the value of the goods but also shows his dishonest intention to deceive the 1st respondent not to pay the money after receiving the property and caused wrongful loss to the 1st respondent and wrongful gain to himself, it is considered not a fit case to quash the proceedings. - HC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:45:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:45:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670109" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>High Court Upholds Proceedings Against Petitioner for Breach of Trust and Fraud u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61922</link>
      <description>Dishonor of Cheque - multiplicity of/parallel proceedings - The businesses are conducted on trust but the petitioner failed to maintain the trust and committed breach without payment of money after receiving the goods. He also closed the business and kept himself absconding in the case under Section 138 NI Act due to which LPC proceedings were initiated against him. As it is not only a simple case of failure to repay the value of the goods but also shows his dishonest intention to deceive the 1st respondent not to pay the money after receiving the property and caused wrongful loss to the 1st respondent and wrongful gain to himself, it is considered not a fit case to quash the proceedings. - HC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 12 Feb 2022 20:45:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=61922</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>