<?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>2021 (9) TMI 1551 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314539</link>
    <description>Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits affidavit evidence for the complainant, but not for the accused. The Court reiterated that the provision does not extend the same facility to defence evidence, and later reference to an earlier Supreme Court ruling did not alter that settled position. On that basis, the trial court correctly refused to receive the accused&#039;s affidavits as defence evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2024 08:34:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756862" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 1551 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314539</link>
      <description>Section 145 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits affidavit evidence for the complainant, but not for the accused. The Court reiterated that the provision does not extend the same facility to defence evidence, and later reference to an earlier Supreme Court ruling did not alter that settled position. On that basis, the trial court correctly refused to receive the accused&#039;s affidavits as defence evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314539</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>