<?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>2019 (8) TMI 1818 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302325</link>
    <description>Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was discussed as a post-conviction deposit mechanism in cheque dishonour appeals, intended to deter frivolous challenges and support recovery. The Kerala HC noted that its operation is linked to the stage at which the appellate court entertains the appeal and considers suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) CrPC. Where the appeal had already been fully heard and posted for judgment, and a substantial deposit had already been ordered, a fresh direction to deposit twenty per cent of the compensation amount was held inconsistent with the purpose and scheme of the provision. The deposit order was therefore set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 May 2022 21:32:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=679306" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (8) TMI 1818 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302325</link>
      <description>Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was discussed as a post-conviction deposit mechanism in cheque dishonour appeals, intended to deter frivolous challenges and support recovery. The Kerala HC noted that its operation is linked to the stage at which the appellate court entertains the appeal and considers suspension of sentence under Section 389(1) CrPC. Where the appeal had already been fully heard and posted for judgment, and a substantial deposit had already been ordered, a fresh direction to deposit twenty per cent of the compensation amount was held inconsistent with the purpose and scheme of the provision. The deposit order was therefore set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302325</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>