<?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 1146 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421480</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the revision petition in part, setting aside the acquittal by the Sessions Judge and confirming the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The sentence of imprisonment was modified to a fine, and the compensation order was upheld. The judgment emphasizes the significance of correctly appreciating evidence and the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 26 Apr 2022 08:15:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=677093" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 1146 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421480</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the revision petition in part, setting aside the acquittal by the Sessions Judge and confirming the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The sentence of imprisonment was modified to a fine, and the compensation order was upheld. The judgment emphasizes the significance of correctly appreciating evidence and the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421480</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>