<?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>2012 (7) TMI 1150 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304305</link>
    <description>A cheque could not be sent for expert opinion to determine the age of the ink, because no scientifically reliable expert or laboratory in India was shown to exist for such examination. The court held that Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies only where a qualified expert with a validated method is available, and that this request appeared to be an afterthought that would merely delay the proceedings. The revision failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2023 10:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=691161" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 1150 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304305</link>
      <description>A cheque could not be sent for expert opinion to determine the age of the ink, because no scientifically reliable expert or laboratory in India was shown to exist for such examination. The court held that Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies only where a qualified expert with a validated method is available, and that this request appeared to be an afterthought that would merely delay the proceedings. The revision failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Jul 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>