<?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 (4) TMI 62 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768148</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable where limitation is computed by excluding the starting day and the filing is within time or involves only a marginal delay capable of condonation on sufficient cause; a separate condonation application is not invariably required, and the Magistrate may take cognizance where the statutory conditions are satisfied. At the summoning stage, the court need only see whether the complaint and supporting affidavit disclose a prima facie case, including specific averments as to the company official&#039;s role, without deciding disputed questions of liability. The quashing challenge therefore failed and the complaint was allowed to proceed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Apr 2025 08:35:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=811073" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (4) TMI 62 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768148</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is maintainable where limitation is computed by excluding the starting day and the filing is within time or involves only a marginal delay capable of condonation on sufficient cause; a separate condonation application is not invariably required, and the Magistrate may take cognizance where the statutory conditions are satisfied. At the summoning stage, the court need only see whether the complaint and supporting affidavit disclose a prima facie case, including specific averments as to the company official&#039;s role, without deciding disputed questions of liability. The quashing challenge therefore failed and the complaint was allowed to proceed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768148</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>