<?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>2008 (5) TMI 748 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305175</link>
    <description>Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted only when a cheque drawn on an account maintained by the drawer is returned unpaid for a reason contemplated by the provision, such as insufficiency of funds or excess over the agreed arrangement. Where the drawer&#039;s bank account had already been attached by court order, the drawer was disabled from operating, funding, withdrawing from, or effectively instructing the bank in relation to that account, so the dishonour was not attributable to a voluntary act or omission by the drawer. The Delhi HC held that such an attached account could not be treated as maintained by the drawer in the relevant sense, and no offence under Section 138 was made out; the complaint was liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2022 14:36:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=696416" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 748 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305175</link>
      <description>Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is attracted only when a cheque drawn on an account maintained by the drawer is returned unpaid for a reason contemplated by the provision, such as insufficiency of funds or excess over the agreed arrangement. Where the drawer&#039;s bank account had already been attached by court order, the drawer was disabled from operating, funding, withdrawing from, or effectively instructing the bank in relation to that account, so the dishonour was not attributable to a voluntary act or omission by the drawer. The Delhi HC held that such an attached account could not be treated as maintained by the drawer in the relevant sense, and no offence under Section 138 was made out; the complaint was liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305175</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>