<?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 (5) TMI 1617 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771345</link>
    <description>Where a cheque was issued pursuant to a mediated settlement that had already been partly performed, a fresh or continuing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held to be impermissible because the original dispute stood subsumed by the compromise. Any breach of the settlement had to be pursued through enforcement remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure or by contempt proceedings, not by duplicative criminal complaints on the same underlying liability. The Court also held that the complaint did not disclose a legally recoverable debt, as the earlier transaction had been absorbed into the settlement and part payment had already been received. The settlement-based complaint was quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 May 2025 09:00:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=824148" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1617 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771345</link>
      <description>Where a cheque was issued pursuant to a mediated settlement that had already been partly performed, a fresh or continuing prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held to be impermissible because the original dispute stood subsumed by the compromise. Any breach of the settlement had to be pursued through enforcement remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure or by contempt proceedings, not by duplicative criminal complaints on the same underlying liability. The Court also held that the complaint did not disclose a legally recoverable debt, as the earlier transaction had been absorbed into the settlement and part payment had already been received. The settlement-based complaint was quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771345</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>