<?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>The court quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ruling that the dishonour of the cheque due to a court order attaching the bank account did not constitute an offence under Section 138. The court distinguished between voluntary acts leading to dishonour and external factors like court orders preventing payment, concluding that the attachment of the account by a court order was beyond the petitioner&#039;s control and did not amount to an offence. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the complaint as no offence under Section 138 was established against the petitioner.</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>The court quashed the proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ruling that the dishonour of the cheque due to a court order attaching the bank account did not constitute an offence under Section 138. The court distinguished between voluntary acts leading to dishonour and external factors like court orders preventing payment, concluding that the attachment of the account by a court order was beyond the petitioner&#039;s control and did not amount to an offence. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashing the complaint as no offence under Section 138 was established against the petitioner.</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>