<?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>Appellate court must provide a reason for imposing conditions u/s 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Blanket orders not acceptable.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78201</link>
    <description>The High Court addressed a case involving the dishonour of a cheque and the imposition of a condition to deposit a specific amount u/s 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was emphasized that the appellate court must provide reasons for imposing such conditions and cannot issue a blanket order for all cases. The court highlighted the need for a speaking order when ordering a deposit, which can vary from the minimum prescribed amount. The High Court found the lower court&#039;s order unsustainable as it lacked proper reasoning and did not require the appellant to execute a bond. Consequently, the direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount was set aside, and the criminal case was allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 08:23:40 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 08:23:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=755528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appellate court must provide a reason for imposing conditions u/s 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Blanket orders not acceptable.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78201</link>
      <description>The High Court addressed a case involving the dishonour of a cheque and the imposition of a condition to deposit a specific amount u/s 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Referring to a Supreme Court decision, it was emphasized that the appellate court must provide reasons for imposing such conditions and cannot issue a blanket order for all cases. The court highlighted the need for a speaking order when ordering a deposit, which can vary from the minimum prescribed amount. The High Court found the lower court&#039;s order unsustainable as it lacked proper reasoning and did not require the appellant to execute a bond. Consequently, the direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount was set aside, and the criminal case was allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2024 08:23:40 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>