<?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 (3) TMI 1424 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305466</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the petitions, directing the lower court to address the jurisdiction matter following the Supreme Court&#039;s guidelines and consider the health condition of the second accused. It was clarified that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be stayed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, as they focus on convicting or acquitting the accused rather than recovering dishonored cheque amounts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2022 21:03:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=697752" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (3) TMI 1424 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305466</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the petitions, directing the lower court to address the jurisdiction matter following the Supreme Court&#039;s guidelines and consider the health condition of the second accused. It was clarified that criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be stayed under Section 446 of the Companies Act, as they focus on convicting or acquitting the accused rather than recovering dishonored cheque amounts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>