<?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 (7) TMI 63 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773995</link>
    <description>Liability for dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the drawer of the cheque, and a proprietary concern has no separate legal identity from its proprietor. Section 141 does not create vicarious liability for a proprietary concern as such. On the record, the cheque and bank account stood in the name of the actual proprietor, whose evidence remained unrebutted, while the respondent was not shown to be the signatory or otherwise legally liable for the dishonour. The attempt to summon the actual proprietor had also failed, so no infirmity was found in the trial court&#039;s view and the acquittal was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Jul 2025 08:42:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=833126" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 63 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773995</link>
      <description>Liability for dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act attaches to the drawer of the cheque, and a proprietary concern has no separate legal identity from its proprietor. Section 141 does not create vicarious liability for a proprietary concern as such. On the record, the cheque and bank account stood in the name of the actual proprietor, whose evidence remained unrebutted, while the respondent was not shown to be the signatory or otherwise legally liable for the dishonour. The attempt to summon the actual proprietor had also failed, so no infirmity was found in the trial court&#039;s view and the acquittal was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773995</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>