<?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>2013 (1) TMI 1055 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311197</link>
    <description>Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act fastens liability on the drawer of a cheque drawn on an account maintained by that person and returned unpaid for the reasons specified in the provision. A mere joint account holder is not liable on that basis alone, because the section does not create vicarious liability for another account holder and the analogy of Section 141 cannot be extended without statutory support. Penal provisions must be strictly construed, and where the complaint does not disclose the petitioner&#039;s role as drawer, prosecution is unsustainable. The complaint against the joint account holder was therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Dec 2023 14:54:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=734993" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (1) TMI 1055 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311197</link>
      <description>Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act fastens liability on the drawer of a cheque drawn on an account maintained by that person and returned unpaid for the reasons specified in the provision. A mere joint account holder is not liable on that basis alone, because the section does not create vicarious liability for another account holder and the analogy of Section 141 cannot be extended without statutory support. Penal provisions must be strictly construed, and where the complaint does not disclose the petitioner&#039;s role as drawer, prosecution is unsustainable. The complaint against the joint account holder was therefore liable to be quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=311197</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>