<?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>2023 (6) TMI 688 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439114</link>
    <description>Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act authorises a trial court in a Section 138 prosecution to direct interim compensation within the statutory limits, with recovery to follow the mechanism under Section 421 CrPC. The Calcutta HC noted that the order was passed in a pending complaint when the accused&#039;s counsel was present, and found no legal prejudice from the manner in which the application was decided. It also held that non-payment of interim compensation cannot be used to impose extra disabilities, such as denial of cross-examination rights, beyond what the statute expressly provides. The procedurally regular order was therefore upheld within the statutory framework.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jun 2023 08:09:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=716786" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (6) TMI 688 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439114</link>
      <description>Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act authorises a trial court in a Section 138 prosecution to direct interim compensation within the statutory limits, with recovery to follow the mechanism under Section 421 CrPC. The Calcutta HC noted that the order was passed in a pending complaint when the accused&#039;s counsel was present, and found no legal prejudice from the manner in which the application was decided. It also held that non-payment of interim compensation cannot be used to impose extra disabilities, such as denial of cross-examination rights, beyond what the statute expressly provides. The procedurally regular order was therefore upheld within the statutory framework.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=439114</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>