<?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>2026 (2) TMI 172 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785977</link>
    <description>Cheque dishonour liability under Section 138 was upheld where the cheque transaction, dishonour memos, statutory notice, and reply notice proved issuance of cheques towards partial discharge of liability and insufficiency of funds on presentation. The accused admitted the transaction, the liability, and issuance of the cheques, and no defence evidence was led to rebut the prosecution case. Vicarious liability under Section 141 was also sustained because the complaint specifically averred that the accused was the Managing Director, in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s day-to-day affairs, and the record showed his active involvement and issuance of the cheques. The revision failed and the conviction and sentence, as modified in appeal, remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2026 08:24:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=884099" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 172 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785977</link>
      <description>Cheque dishonour liability under Section 138 was upheld where the cheque transaction, dishonour memos, statutory notice, and reply notice proved issuance of cheques towards partial discharge of liability and insufficiency of funds on presentation. The accused admitted the transaction, the liability, and issuance of the cheques, and no defence evidence was led to rebut the prosecution case. Vicarious liability under Section 141 was also sustained because the complaint specifically averred that the accused was the Managing Director, in charge of and responsible for the company&#039;s day-to-day affairs, and the record showed his active involvement and issuance of the cheques. The revision failed and the conviction and sentence, as modified in appeal, remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>