<?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>2007 (10) TMI 717 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310658</link>
    <description>Signed renewal endorsements made before expiry of limitation can operate as acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, and a cheque signed by the drawer may amount to a fresh promise to pay under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. On that basis, repeated revalidation of the cheque can extend or revive enforceability of the debt. Where the cheque is issued and presented within the extended period, the debt remains legally recoverable and prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not barred by limitation. The document states that, on these principles, the quashing request failed because the liability was enforceable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Nov 2023 16:44:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=731311" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 717 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310658</link>
      <description>Signed renewal endorsements made before expiry of limitation can operate as acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, and a cheque signed by the drawer may amount to a fresh promise to pay under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. On that basis, repeated revalidation of the cheque can extend or revive enforceability of the debt. Where the cheque is issued and presented within the extended period, the debt remains legally recoverable and prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not barred by limitation. The document states that, on these principles, the quashing request failed because the liability was enforceable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>