<?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>2023 (1) TMI 1436 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459809</link>
    <description>A bona fide clerical or typographical error in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint may be corrected where the cheque details and underlying transaction remain unchanged, the amendment does not alter the foundation of the prosecution, and no real prejudice is shown to the defence. The High Court treated the wrong year in the complaint and connected documents as an unintentional drafting mistake, noted that procedural corrections are permissible where justice so requires, and found that the request was made before completion of prosecution evidence. The amendment was therefore permitted in favour of the complainant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:10:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=784973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (1) TMI 1436 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459809</link>
      <description>A bona fide clerical or typographical error in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint may be corrected where the cheque details and underlying transaction remain unchanged, the amendment does not alter the foundation of the prosecution, and no real prejudice is shown to the defence. The High Court treated the wrong year in the complaint and connected documents as an unintentional drafting mistake, noted that procedural corrections are permissible where justice so requires, and found that the request was made before completion of prosecution evidence. The amendment was therefore permitted in favour of the complainant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459809</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>