<?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 (6) TMI 1259 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754652</link>
    <description>Writ jurisdiction was held generally unavailable to challenge orders issuing process, rejecting jurisdictional objections, rejecting discharge, refusing ancillary evidentiary applications, or granting interim compensation in Section 138 NI Act proceedings where the statutory revisional remedy was not pursued. Discharge under Section 239 CrPC was treated as inapplicable to summary complaints under the NI Act, and the trial court&#039;s rejection of such applications was upheld. Applications for bank statements, signature comparison, and clubbing were treated as premature or otherwise not maintainable at that stage, while interim compensation under Section 143-A was found to be reasoned and free from perversity. The petitions were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jun 2024 08:44:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757860" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 1259 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754652</link>
      <description>Writ jurisdiction was held generally unavailable to challenge orders issuing process, rejecting jurisdictional objections, rejecting discharge, refusing ancillary evidentiary applications, or granting interim compensation in Section 138 NI Act proceedings where the statutory revisional remedy was not pursued. Discharge under Section 239 CrPC was treated as inapplicable to summary complaints under the NI Act, and the trial court&#039;s rejection of such applications was upheld. Applications for bank statements, signature comparison, and clubbing were treated as premature or otherwise not maintainable at that stage, while interim compensation under Section 143-A was found to be reasoned and free from perversity. The petitions were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>