<?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 (4) TMI 669 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789600</link>
    <description>Presentation of a cheque within the Section 138 period is computed by calendar months under Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, excluding the date of issue; on that basis, cheques dated 28.11.2016 and presented on 27.02.2017 were treated as within time. An endorsement of &quot;instrument out dated stale&quot; did not, by itself, fasten criminal liability under Section 138 where the return was attributable to the banker and the statutory ingredients of dishonour were not established. Vicarious liability under Section 141 also failed because the fourth accused was neither a partner nor a signatory, and no foundational evidence showed participation in the transaction. The proceedings were quashed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:02:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=896131" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (4) TMI 669 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789600</link>
      <description>Presentation of a cheque within the Section 138 period is computed by calendar months under Section 3(35) of the General Clauses Act, excluding the date of issue; on that basis, cheques dated 28.11.2016 and presented on 27.02.2017 were treated as within time. An endorsement of &quot;instrument out dated stale&quot; did not, by itself, fasten criminal liability under Section 138 where the return was attributable to the banker and the statutory ingredients of dishonour were not established. Vicarious liability under Section 141 also failed because the fourth accused was neither a partner nor a signatory, and no foundational evidence showed participation in the transaction. The proceedings were quashed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789600</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>