<?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>2005 (12) TMI 606 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307356</link>
    <description>The court upheld the guilty verdict and conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for the Managing Partner of a firm who issued a dishonored cheque. The court clarified that the Managing Partner could be held liable as the drawer of the cheque on behalf of the firm, even without the firm being prosecuted separately. The court emphasized the Managing Partner&#039;s authority to act on behalf of the firm. The firm was found to have committed an offense under Section 138, leading to a modified sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court, compensation, and default sentence if the petitioner failed to appear before the Magistrate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Apr 2023 17:15:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710087" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (12) TMI 606 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307356</link>
      <description>The court upheld the guilty verdict and conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for the Managing Partner of a firm who issued a dishonored cheque. The court clarified that the Managing Partner could be held liable as the drawer of the cheque on behalf of the firm, even without the firm being prosecuted separately. The court emphasized the Managing Partner&#039;s authority to act on behalf of the firm. The firm was found to have committed an offense under Section 138, leading to a modified sentence of imprisonment till rising of the court, compensation, and default sentence if the petitioner failed to appear before the Magistrate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307356</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>