<?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 (5) TMI 575 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791373</link>
    <description>A cheque complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held unsustainable where the company had already come under provisional liquidation and the former management no longer controlled its affairs. Once the provisional liquidator was appointed, authority over the company&#039;s assets and instruments vested in the liquidator, so cheques filled and presented without such authority could not found criminal liability. Dishonour marked &quot;Account Blocked&quot; also did not satisfy Section 138 on these facts because the dishonour arose from the liquidation-related loss of control, not from insufficiency of funds or an equivalent statutory condition. The criminal petition therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 May 2026 09:50:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900941" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (5) TMI 575 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791373</link>
      <description>A cheque complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held unsustainable where the company had already come under provisional liquidation and the former management no longer controlled its affairs. Once the provisional liquidator was appointed, authority over the company&#039;s assets and instruments vested in the liquidator, so cheques filled and presented without such authority could not found criminal liability. Dishonour marked &quot;Account Blocked&quot; also did not satisfy Section 138 on these facts because the dishonour arose from the liquidation-related loss of control, not from insufficiency of funds or an equivalent statutory condition. The criminal petition therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791373</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>