https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786681 A misdescription of the complainant's name did not, by itself, justify quashing where the record suggested the difference was only nomenclatural and the complainant could explain its locus standi at trial. However, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not survive because the cheque was found unsupported by any legally enforceable liability: the lease security deposit had already been paid, an eviction notice had been issued, and the cheque amount was subsequently returned by RTGS. The belated claim that the cheque represented fit-out damages was not borne out by the demand notice or parallel proceedings, so the complaint, summoning order, and connected proceedings were set aside. en-us Mon, 16 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Feb 2026 08:11:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786681 A misdescription of the complainant's name did not, by itself, justify quashing where the record suggested the difference was only nomenclatural and the complainant could explain its locus standi at trial. However, proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not survive because the cheque was found unsupported by any legally enforceable liability: the lease security deposit had already been paid, an eviction notice had been issued, and the cheque amount was subsequently returned by RTGS. The belated claim that the cheque represented fit-out damages was not borne out by the demand notice or parallel proceedings, so the complaint, summoning order, and connected proceedings were set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786681