<?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>2020 (8) TMI 899 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301795</link>
    <description>Where a cheque is issued on behalf of a partnership firm, prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 141 requires compliance with the statutory pre-conditions, including notice to the firm and arraignment of the firm as the principal offender. Vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the partner alone if the firm is neither issued notice nor impleaded as an accused. On the stated facts, the cheque was drawn for the firm, but notice was served only on the partner and the firm was not made a party, so the complaint failed to meet the legal requirements for prosecution and was not maintainable against the partner alone.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2022 20:11:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=676617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (8) TMI 899 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301795</link>
      <description>Where a cheque is issued on behalf of a partnership firm, prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 141 requires compliance with the statutory pre-conditions, including notice to the firm and arraignment of the firm as the principal offender. Vicarious liability cannot be fastened on the partner alone if the firm is neither issued notice nor impleaded as an accused. On the stated facts, the cheque was drawn for the firm, but notice was served only on the partner and the firm was not made a party, so the complaint failed to meet the legal requirements for prosecution and was not maintainable against the partner alone.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301795</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>