<?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>2015 (12) TMI 1878 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304403</link>
    <description>In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court permitted reference of the cheques to a handwriting expert after the complainant&#039;s evidence was recorded and the accused&#039;s statement had been taken. The request was allowed because the accused had raised a specific defence that the cheques were signed blank instruments given as security and later filled in by the complainant. The earlier refusal had been only on the ground of prematurity, and the authorities cited by the petitioner were distinguished on facts. As no jurisdictional or legal error was shown, the writ challenge to the expert-reference order was not entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Sep 2022 08:17:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=691617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (12) TMI 1878 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304403</link>
      <description>In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court permitted reference of the cheques to a handwriting expert after the complainant&#039;s evidence was recorded and the accused&#039;s statement had been taken. The request was allowed because the accused had raised a specific defence that the cheques were signed blank instruments given as security and later filled in by the complainant. The earlier refusal had been only on the ground of prematurity, and the authorities cited by the petitioner were distinguished on facts. As no jurisdictional or legal error was shown, the writ challenge to the expert-reference order was not entertained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>