<?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>2004 (3) TMI 833 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313764</link>
    <description>The HC dismissed the petitioners&#039; contention, affirming its jurisdiction over the case involving dishonored cheques drawn on a foreign bank account in Singapore. The court emphasized that Indian law provisions allow Indian companies to seek redress for dishonored instruments, ensuring that jurisdiction is determined by the place of payment, which was Madras.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 May 2024 18:00:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 833 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313764</link>
      <description>The HC dismissed the petitioners&#039; contention, affirming its jurisdiction over the case involving dishonored cheques drawn on a foreign bank account in Singapore. The court emphasized that Indian law provisions allow Indian companies to seek redress for dishonored instruments, ensuring that jurisdiction is determined by the place of payment, which was Madras.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313764</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>