<?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>2009 (12) TMI 1055 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308349</link>
    <description>A signed blank or incomplete cheque may give the holder prima facie authority to complete it, but Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act limits recovery by a non-holder in due course to the amount intended by the drawer. On the facts noted, the surrounding correspondence and admitted settlement background suggested that the cheque may have been issued for a specific understanding and that the amount filled in exceeded what was intended. The Court treated continuation of the Section 138 complaint as potentially oppressive and held that the availability of civil remedies did not prevent intervention where the criminal process appeared to be used as pressure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2023 11:32:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=716966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 1055 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308349</link>
      <description>A signed blank or incomplete cheque may give the holder prima facie authority to complete it, but Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act limits recovery by a non-holder in due course to the amount intended by the drawer. On the facts noted, the surrounding correspondence and admitted settlement background suggested that the cheque may have been issued for a specific understanding and that the amount filled in exceeded what was intended. The Court treated continuation of the Section 138 complaint as potentially oppressive and held that the availability of civil remedies did not prevent intervention where the criminal process appeared to be used as pressure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>