<?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>2006 (8) TMI 699 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314457</link>
    <description>The petition challenging the summoning of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was resolved by quashing the summoning orders. The court determined that the complaint lacked necessary averments to establish the petitioner&#039;s vicarious liability as required under Section 141, thus failing to substantiate the case for issuance of process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:24:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756143" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 699 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314457</link>
      <description>The petition challenging the summoning of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was resolved by quashing the summoning orders. The court determined that the complaint lacked necessary averments to establish the petitioner&#039;s vicarious liability as required under Section 141, thus failing to substantiate the case for issuance of process.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314457</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>