<?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>Cheque dishonor case: Timely notice &amp; complaint filing within limitation period upheld.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82862</link>
    <description>Dishonor of cheque due to insufficient funds, the legal requirements for issuing notice and filing a complaint within the prescribed time limit, and the court&#039;s analysis of whether the complaint was filed within the limitation period. It discusses the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act when the limitation period expires on a court holiday. The court found that the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge did not err in issuing the summoning order against the petitioner, as the complainant provided pre-summoning evidence through an affidavit as per Section 145. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts did not commit any illegality warranting interference u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2024 08:47:59 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2024 08:47:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=776837" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Cheque dishonor case: Timely notice &amp; complaint filing within limitation period upheld.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82862</link>
      <description>Dishonor of cheque due to insufficient funds, the legal requirements for issuing notice and filing a complaint within the prescribed time limit, and the court&#039;s analysis of whether the complaint was filed within the limitation period. It discusses the applicability of Section 4 of the Limitation Act when the limitation period expires on a court holiday. The court found that the Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge did not err in issuing the summoning order against the petitioner, as the complainant provided pre-summoning evidence through an affidavit as per Section 145. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the lower courts did not commit any illegality warranting interference u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Nov 2024 08:47:59 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=82862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>