<?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 (4) TMI 556 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751375</link>
    <description>The Bombay HC dismissed an appeal in a dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused director was acquitted because the complainant failed to issue statutory notice to the proper person. The cheques were drawn on the company&#039;s bank account, not the director&#039;s personal account, making the company the drawer. The court held that notice must be issued to both the company and the director in his capacity as company director, as required by proviso (b) of Section 138. Since the complainant failed to comply with this mandatory provision, the acquittal was upheld despite other aspects favoring the complainant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Apr 2024 07:10:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=750072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (4) TMI 556 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751375</link>
      <description>The Bombay HC dismissed an appeal in a dishonour of cheque case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused director was acquitted because the complainant failed to issue statutory notice to the proper person. The cheques were drawn on the company&#039;s bank account, not the director&#039;s personal account, making the company the drawer. The court held that notice must be issued to both the company and the director in his capacity as company director, as required by proviso (b) of Section 138. Since the complainant failed to comply with this mandatory provision, the acquittal was upheld despite other aspects favoring the complainant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Mar 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=751375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>