Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires person-specific foundational averments showing how an accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company or entity's affairs. A complaint cannot proceed on designation alone. The Court found sufficient prima facie material against respondents 1, 2 and 4 because the complaint and documents linked them to the underlying borrowing and execution of the MoU, cheque and promissory notes, justifying continuation of prosecution. As to respondent 3, only a general assertion based on his status as Executive Member was made, with no specific factual nexus to the dishonoured cheque transaction, so quashing was upheld for him.
Vicarious liability under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires person-specific foundational averments showing how an accused was in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the company or entity's affairs. A complaint cannot proceed on designation alone. The Court found sufficient prima facie material against respondents 1, 2 and 4 because the complaint and documents linked them to the underlying borrowing and execution of the MoU, cheque and promissory notes, justifying continuation of prosecution. As to respondent 3, only a general assertion based on his status as Executive Member was made, with no specific factual nexus to the dishonoured cheque transaction, so quashing was upheld for him.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
