<?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 1776 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775708</link>
    <description>For Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the limitation under proviso (b) runs from receipt of bank information of dishonour, and dispatch of the demand notice within fifteen days to the correct address satisfies the statutory requirement; deemed service applies unless rebutted. The notice here was dispatched within time and the accused failed to disprove service or incorrect addressing, so the earlier view rejecting notice validity was erroneous. On the liability issue, the cheque was found to have been issued towards rent liability, and the defence material did not show that no amount was due on the cheque date. The acquittal was set aside and conviction under Section 138 was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2025 08:21:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839579" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1776 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775708</link>
      <description>For Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the limitation under proviso (b) runs from receipt of bank information of dishonour, and dispatch of the demand notice within fifteen days to the correct address satisfies the statutory requirement; deemed service applies unless rebutted. The notice here was dispatched within time and the accused failed to disprove service or incorrect addressing, so the earlier view rejecting notice validity was erroneous. On the liability issue, the cheque was found to have been issued towards rent liability, and the defence material did not show that no amount was due on the cheque date. The acquittal was set aside and conviction under Section 138 was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775708</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>