<?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 (7) TMI 858 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755638</link>
    <description>Endorsement of a cheque as &quot;referred to the drawer&quot; was treated as falling within Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, so that objection failed. However, criminal liability under Section 138 still depends on service of statutory notice, expiry of the prescribed fifteen-day waiting period, and institution of the complaint in a legally maintainable form. On the facts noted, the complaint was filed before the cause of action arose and was also presented by the power of attorney holder in his own name rather than in the payee&#039;s name, rendering it premature and improperly instituted. The complaint proceedings were therefore quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2024 08:04:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=760339" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 858 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755638</link>
      <description>Endorsement of a cheque as &quot;referred to the drawer&quot; was treated as falling within Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, so that objection failed. However, criminal liability under Section 138 still depends on service of statutory notice, expiry of the prescribed fifteen-day waiting period, and institution of the complaint in a legally maintainable form. On the facts noted, the complaint was filed before the cause of action arose and was also presented by the power of attorney holder in his own name rather than in the payee&#039;s name, rendering it premature and improperly instituted. The complaint proceedings were therefore quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755638</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>