<?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>2025 (2) TMI 369 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765823</link>
    <description>Punjab &amp;amp; Haryana HC dismissed a second appeal where plaintiff sought damages for defamation, mental pain, and financial loss allegedly caused by defendant&#039;s false litigation following dishonored cheque. Court held plaintiff failed to prove any damage to reputation, property, or person. First Appellate Court correctly found no malicious prosecution as defendant&#039;s Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceedings were not instituted with malice. Mere acquittal in criminal case does not establish malicious prosecution. No evidence showed plaintiff&#039;s image was damaged or complaint details were published. Court found no grounds to interfere with lower appellate court&#039;s dismissal of suit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Feb 2025 07:18:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=796723" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 369 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765823</link>
      <description>Punjab &amp;amp; Haryana HC dismissed a second appeal where plaintiff sought damages for defamation, mental pain, and financial loss allegedly caused by defendant&#039;s false litigation following dishonored cheque. Court held plaintiff failed to prove any damage to reputation, property, or person. First Appellate Court correctly found no malicious prosecution as defendant&#039;s Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act proceedings were not instituted with malice. Mere acquittal in criminal case does not establish malicious prosecution. No evidence showed plaintiff&#039;s image was damaged or complaint details were published. Court found no grounds to interfere with lower appellate court&#039;s dismissal of suit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=765823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>