<?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>2022 (4) TMI 1145 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421479</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 2,05,000/-, ensuring Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- to the State. The court emphasized the compensatory nature of the remedy and set aside the additional cost imposed by the appellate court, ensuring justice in line with the statutory objectives and judicial precedents.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:15:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677091" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 1145 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421479</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but modified the sentence to a fine of Rs. 2,05,000/-, ensuring Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- to the State. The court emphasized the compensatory nature of the remedy and set aside the additional cost imposed by the appellate court, ensuring justice in line with the statutory objectives and judicial precedents.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>