<?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>2004 (12) TMI 725 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304208</link>
    <description>The appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused. The court found that the complainant&#039;s Managing Director had the authority to file the complaint, proper service of the legal notice to the accused was deemed to have been made, but the accused successfully rebutted the presumption that the cheque was issued for the discharge of debt or liability. Consequently, the court affirmed the acquittal of the accused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2022 14:37:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=690581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (12) TMI 725 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304208</link>
      <description>The appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused. The court found that the complainant&#039;s Managing Director had the authority to file the complaint, proper service of the legal notice to the accused was deemed to have been made, but the accused successfully rebutted the presumption that the cheque was issued for the discharge of debt or liability. Consequently, the court affirmed the acquittal of the accused.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304208</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>