<?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>2024 (3) TMI 273 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450492</link>
    <description>Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging condonation of 1259 days delay in filing Section 138 NI Act complaint. The court held that Section 138 proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, being both punitive and compensatory, with compensatory aspects taking priority. Given the hybrid nature, delay condonation deserves different perspective than purely punitive prosecutions. The accused had acknowledged liability post-demand notice, executed MOU promising installment payments, and made representations causing complainant to forbear filing complaint. The Magistrate&#039;s discretion to condone delay was justified, promoting substantive justice, and Revisional Court correctly refrained from interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2024 21:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=745958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (3) TMI 273 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450492</link>
      <description>Bombay HC dismissed a petition challenging condonation of 1259 days delay in filing Section 138 NI Act complaint. The court held that Section 138 proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature, being both punitive and compensatory, with compensatory aspects taking priority. Given the hybrid nature, delay condonation deserves different perspective than purely punitive prosecutions. The accused had acknowledged liability post-demand notice, executed MOU promising installment payments, and made representations causing complainant to forbear filing complaint. The Magistrate&#039;s discretion to condone delay was justified, promoting substantive justice, and Revisional Court correctly refrained from interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=450492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>