<?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 1741 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771469</link>
    <description>An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remained compoundable after conviction because the parties settled the dispute and the complainant consented; the conviction and sentence were therefore quashed, and the petitioner was treated as acquitted. The Court also accepted that compounding costs may be moderated on special facts, including financial hardship, and reduced the usual fee by directing deposit of a token amount.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 27 May 2025 08:32:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=824623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 1741 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771469</link>
      <description>An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remained compoundable after conviction because the parties settled the dispute and the complainant consented; the conviction and sentence were therefore quashed, and the petitioner was treated as acquitted. The Court also accepted that compounding costs may be moderated on special facts, including financial hardship, and reduced the usual fee by directing deposit of a token amount.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=771469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>