<?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>2006 (5) TMI 561 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302160</link>
    <description>The appeal challenging the respondent&#039;s acquittal under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was dismissed. The court found that the cheque in question, issued for unsupplied mixies, was not intended to discharge any existing liability towards the complainant. Despite communications indicating a general settlement of accounts, the specific amount due was not proven. Therefore, the respondent&#039;s acquittal was upheld based on the lack of evidence showing the cheque was meant to cover the liability, as required by Section 138.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 May 2022 14:33:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=678455" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 561 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302160</link>
      <description>The appeal challenging the respondent&#039;s acquittal under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was dismissed. The court found that the cheque in question, issued for unsupplied mixies, was not intended to discharge any existing liability towards the complainant. Despite communications indicating a general settlement of accounts, the specific amount due was not proven. Therefore, the respondent&#039;s acquittal was upheld based on the lack of evidence showing the cheque was meant to cover the liability, as required by Section 138.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302160</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>